‘Smart’ Meter Pushback Report
In this edition we look at some of the whys and hows PG&E customers may now consider opting-out of the utility’s ill-conceived wireless ‘smart’ meter rollout plan. We also look at critical responses of movement activists to the CPUC’s interim opt-out plan, then at personal privacy perils, corporate data collection dangers and wireless energy grid security risks. In short, why ‘smart’ is on pace to rank as the New Stupid, and why wise public opposition to a wireless energy grid is growing nationally and internationally.

‘Hey! We won – sort of – with more to come!
By Mary Beth Brangan

You may recently have received a certified letter from PG&E and a robo call telling you that you now have the option until May 1 to choose to keep your analog meter or have a ‘smart’ meter installed. Happy day! Except for the ridiculous ‘interim’ fee of $75 up front and $10 extra monthly (to discourage opt outs) and a few other potential pitfalls to watch out for.

A Milestone Won, The Pushback Continues

We aren’t finished with this yet. There is a Phase Two in the CPUC’s opt out legal proceeding and EON is a legal party in the negotiations. The current fees are “interim fees” and may be changed as a result of the discussion in Phase Two.

Our movement is still fighting against this fee extortion but we must first fight against it in the court of the very entity that mandated the ‘smart’ meters in the first place and then charged the fee, the California Public Utility Commission, CPUC.

There are legal challenges coming from our movement both in the CPUC court and later in the state and federal courts. We are absolutely opposed to forcing people to pay to NOT to have something on their homes that they didn’t ask for and that may harm them in many ways and that emits what the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) classified as a class 2B carcinogen.

We’re also determined to get community-wide opt outs, since if neighbors have the RF pulsing meters, they still can effect you, by adversely affecting your health from the meters directly or by the “dirty electricity” that will be pulsing throughout the grid wherever there are ‘smart’ meters installed. You can’t opt out of ‘dirty electricity.’ Also, so far, the opt out only applies to residences, not businesses. That is reprehensible.

Actually there are so many reasons to be against this ill-conceived ‘smart grid’ that the whole plan needs to go back to the drawing board. (For the reality of the privacy issues – essentially surveilling you in your home and the reality of national security issues that will be endangered by making the grid so vulnerable to hacking because of wireless meters – see the GAO and the CRS for instance.)

For all these reasons and even more, many activists in the movement are advocating resisting PG&E’s protection racket by not paying the ‘opt out’ fee and are calling for the complete abandonment of the whole disastrous ‘smart’ grid plan.

But in the meantime, here are some things to consider about the current opt out situation:

If you have a smart meter, you now can have it changed to an analog. Many people with smart meters are experiencing (1) higher utility bills, (2) health problems and (3) interference with or damage to electrical devices in their homes. Paying $75 + $10/month to have the smart meter removed may be worth it for some people just to avoid the higher electrical bills, not to mention medical bills.

Then there are the RF radiation pulses. PG&E has admitted in legal filings with the CPUC that each smart meter pulses RF radiation between 10,000 and 190,000 times per day—quite a different account of the radiation than PG&E had previously been reporting in the media.

The County Health Department of Santa Cruz did a report on smart meter health issues, and they concluded that the RF radiation from smart meters poses a significant risk to human health, and that government regulatory bodies should exercise much more caution in such a wide-spread roll-out. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine recently wrote a letter to the CPUC stating that the smart meter program should be halted. .

PG&E needs our fees? Really?

PGE claims that the charges cover meter readers that won’t be needed by those with ‘smart’ meters. But we’re already paying for meter readers in our bills. Plus we’re paying for the $2.2 Billion ‘smart’ meters – about $300 per customer…

So, someone opting out is paying multiple times, for a ‘smart’ meter they don’t want and won’t get, plus twice for meter readers. There are no refunds for the increased rates for unused ‘smart’ meters – or for the new accounting systems they will require. PG&E wants to charge those of us opting out for the separate accounting system, but it already exists and has been paid for by our current charges.

You can also register your objection to the extortionate charges on www.SmartMeterHelp.com the main site for complaints. This site will route your complaint to all relevant officials.

Thoughts on ‘opting out’

The number to call to have the smart meter replaced by PG&E is 866-743-0263. You can also call that number to state you will keep your analog. To do it on-line, the PG&E website is here.PG&E wants to know by May 1.

Some in the movement say to delay until May with your decision, to avoid paying the fee until the last minute. Others claim that a vice President of PG&E promised in a personal conversation that they won’t charge until May anyway. You’ll have to decide when you take action. Just don’t forget to do it if you decide to wait, since after May 1, they will assume you want a ‘smart’ meter if you don’t tell them otherwise.

If you still have your analog meter, be sure that PG&E doesn’t change it to a ‘new’ analog meter. Some meters have been replaced with a quasi-‘smart’ meter that still emits dangerous RF. Be sure to continue to guard your meter and insist on being there when any PG&E employee is dealing with your meter. Don’t let them bully you into accepting a replacement analog meter, unless yours is truly 90 years old. Let us know if they try to do that.

If you have a ‘smart’ meter already and want to get rid of it asap, which is a good idea so you won’t be injured, overcharged or surveiled, you can write “paid under protest” on your check. Avoid signing anything that may limit your right to sue later if we bring a class action lawsuit, which many want to do.

All fees paid for opting out (of something we never opted into in the first place) should be marked “paid under protest” on your check to enable further legal action if necessary.

You might qualify for low-income electricity rates through CARES or FERA. If you do, the opt-out fee is $10 up front and $5 extra monthly.

Mary Beth Brangan – marybeth@eon3.net

=======

Some Marin SmartMeter opponents dismiss PG&E’s opt-out plan
Some aren’t pleased with meter alternative that comes at a price
Published: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:10 PM PST
By Jessica Mullins – Marinscope Twin Cities Times

At long last, PG&E customers have an alternative to SmartMeters. But Mill Valley’s Judi Shils, a longtime critic of the meters’ wireless technology, has nothing good to say about the colossal power utility’s fee-based opt-out plan.

“The whole thing is so reprehensible,” said Shils, founder and director of the Sausalito-based environmental advocacy group Teens Turning Green. Shils said it’s “absurd” that PG&E will charge customers (especially those complaining of health impacts) to keep a regular analog meter.

But the opt-out plan, which the California Public Utilities Commission approved unanimously Feb. 1, needs fees to cover manual meter-reading costs, PG&E spokesperson Greg Snapper told Marinscope Newspapers. Customers will pay a $75 initial setup charge and a $10 monthly charge. Those who qualify for low-income rates will pay a $10 setup charge and $5 a month.

PG&E had originally proposed higher fees for the program, Snapper said. “It’s going to be costly to maintain a second meter-reading program,” he said, adding that meter readers would be deployed sporadically, since PG&E has installed about 90 percent of its SmartMeters in California.

SmartMeter installations are 80 percent complete in Marin County, where PG&E had around 216,000 gas and electric meters to upgrade, Snapper said.

Shils and other opponents claim the meters’ electromagnetic signals cause health issues including headaches and trouble sleeping. She said her SmartMeter turns her into “Judy Jetson. I’m in outer space,” she said. The meter makes her feel dizzy, causes heart palpitations and makes her “head feel like it’s going to explode.” She said it wasn’t fair that people who are sensitive to the meters must now pay to avoid them.

But PG&E officials stress that dozens of scientific studies prove the meters aren’t harmful.

“We want to reassure our customers our SmartMeters are safe,” Snapper said. “They are part of the numerous radio-frequency-emitting devices in our society. We still respect and understand that some consumers don’t want them and they can continue living a wireless-free life where they can. We will be fulfilling their request.”

A January 2011 California Council on Science and Technology report revealed the radiation from the meters is dwarfed by the radiation from items such as cellphones and microwave ovens, and that the actual radiation falls well within Federal Communications Commission guidelines.

But Bolinas resident Mary Beth Brangan, co-director of the Ecological Options Network, said she knew of several cases where people became so ill from the SmartMeters they had to leave their homes. “No one is immune to this. It’s going to affect everyone. It’s just some people respond and get sick faster and others get sick and don’t make the connection,” she said.

Brangan went so far as to compare PG&E’s opt-out rates to “extortion.”

“People will be priced out of being able to opt out,” Brangan said. “It’s like a mafia solution. If you pay us enough we won’t make you sick.”

But not all Marin residents are opposed to the plan. Novato’s Dennis Hagerty wrote: “If people don’t want a SmartMeter it costs more for the utility. Let those people pay extra. I do not believe in the alleged ‘health risks.’ ”

He added that the technology, which lets customers closely track their energy usage and is part of a larger “smart grid” system, is helping people save money.

Program to use refurbished analog meters

For people who opt out of the SmartMeter program, PG&E officials will replace the meters with analog meters unless they still have their original meter.

The analog meters are “older-style meters that are no longer manufactured,” Snapper said. PG&E is purchasing them from an East Coast vendor who is refurbishing them. “These do not have any communication components or hardware. These are the ones with spinning dials and mechanical parts.”

Snapper added that the meters must be PG&E approved — customers can’t use their own meters.

Shils said she had been planning on installing her own analog meter in her home before the opt-out option surfaced, and she still plans to install it this week. “I don’t trust them. I don’t want their meter. I probably will get my electricity turned off. At this point my health is more important.”

Communitywide plan on horizon

Brangan said the opt-out plan is “too late.” A second phase in the CPUC-instructed opt-out proceedings will include a “communitywide opt-out option,” which Brangan argues should have come first. “Neighbors’ meters are still going to be able to harm you.”

Snapper said officials don’t yet know what the community opt-out plan will entail, but added that PG&E will be in “full support” of the decision the CPUC makes about the option.

Brangan said a communitywide opt-out could especially appeal to the roughly 10 counties and 38 cities and towns in California (including Marin County and Fairfax) that levied a SmartMeter ban.

Brangan said anti-SmartMeter efforts picked up steam two years ago in Marin. “All over the world people are watching what’s going on here with PG&E and the SmartMeter,” she said.

Residents, Marin city councils and the Marin Board of Supervisors began voicing loud opposition to PG&E’s rapid installation of the gas and electric meters in 2010. While some expressed concern about health impacts from the meters’ signals, invasion-of-privacy concerns and billing inaccuracies, a common message sent to PG&E focused on customers’ lack of alternatives to SmartMeters.

In 2010 Fairfax and the county of Marin passed emergency moratoriums banning SmartMeters. In June 2010 the city and county of San Francisco filed a petition with the CPUC to suspend SmartMeter installation until an investigation looking at billing inaccuracies was complete. Fairfax joined in the petition and the Marin Board of Supervisors, Sausalito City Council, Novato City Council and Ross Town Council all agreed to submit a letter that supported the petition and asked PG&E to suspend installation.

The investigation report, which was released in September 2010, found that PG&E’s SmartMeters functioned properly but the utility company did not effectively address customer concerns.

San Rafael city officials and the Sausalito City Council were among the local municipalities that agreed to send a letters to the CPUC and PG&E asking for a permanent opt-out program for residents who did not want a SmartMeter.

Although the Marin Board of Supervisors voted to impose a one-year moratorium on SmartMeter installations, PG&E said it would not halt installations, and the county sheriff announced he would not enforce the ban.

Some residents took it upon themselves to reject SmartMeters.

Brangan was one of several West Marin residents who halted the private contractor PG&E hired to install the meters, Wellington Energy. “We literally chased the Wellington trucks out of West Marin and we went to the Wellington truck yard in Sonoma and tried to block the trucks there.”

On Dec. 29, 2010, two women were arrested in Inverness Park in unincorporated Marin County in a protest against SmartMeter installations.

PG&E customers can request to opt out of the SmartMeter program online at pge.com/smartmeteroptout or by calling 866-743-0263.

Contact Jessica Mullins at jmullins@marinscope.com.

Privacy Issues:

from Naperville Smart Meter Awareness:

Detailed Data Derived from Smart Meters

On February 3, 2012, the following report “Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress,” was published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and authored by three legislative attorneys. The CRS is one of the primary research organizations of the federal government and is operated by Congress to research issues of importance to the nation. They are also nonpartisan.

Readers will be shocked to know what kind of detailed information can be derived from “smart” meters. With alarming accuracy, exactly which appliances are being used at any given time is possible even with 15-minute incremental data taken from the smart meter. A pretty accurate profile of the activities within a home is depicted in the NIST chart below. The City of Naperville is using NIST as its standards, according to their NSGI Customer Privacy and Advocacy Handbook.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42338.pdf

For the best parts, read pages 7-8:

“By examining smart meter data, it is possible to identify which appliances a consumer is using and at what times of the day, because each type of appliance generates a unique electric load “signature.””

“NIST wrote in 2010 that “research shows that analyzing 15-minute interval aggregate household energy consumption data can by itself pinpoint the use of most major home appliances.”

“Similarly, software-based algorithms would likely allow a person to extract the unique signatures of individual appliances from meter data that has been collected less frequently and is therefore less detailed.”

Grid Security Issues:
Smart Grid Legal News

Recently, PJM CEO Terry Boston stated in his interview with us that security of the electric grid is a critical issue. As cyber threats to the nation’s electrical grid become increasingly sophisticated and dynamic, the Department of Energy is continuing to work closely with the Department of Homeland Security, other government agencies and industry to reduce the risk of energy disruptions due to cyber incidents. Last September, the Department released the Roadmap to Achieve Energy Delivery Systems Cybersecurity and a Draft Cybersecurity Risk Management Process Guideline that seeks to establish frameworks and processes to help the electricity sector manage cybersecurity risk. Read more.

Smart Grid Security Blogspot
from Joe Weiss of Applied Control Solutions:
Jim Lewis may not be aware that more than 200 actual control system cyber incidents have occurred to date. There have been more than 20 control system cyber incidents in the North American electric grid including three major cyber-related electric outages and 2 nuclear plants shut down from full power. Unfortunately, even though the batting average is still low, it is not miniscule anymore. Read more.

=======
To help keep EON’s work going, please check out all the support options on our Donation Page or you can also send a check made out to EON to EON, POB 1047, Bolinas, CA
Or…just:

Screw-Ups, Shut-Downs, Ghost Towns and Cover-Ups: Normal Operating Procedures [Updated 2-10-2012]
This edition’s harvest of nuclear news reports casts further doubt on the sanity of the dwindling numbers of atomic energy advocates. From California’s San Onofre, Illinois’s Byron, Minnesota’s Prairie Island, to Moscow’s Nuclear Research Center, to Vermont Yankee, to Japan’s Fukushima, (emergencies just within the past week) to nuclear power plants in Germany, and from TEPCO to the NRC the vulnerability of the whole nuclear complex to technical failure, scientistic delusion, managerial incompetence, official malfeasance and links to organized crime is too obvious to deny. And now they tell us, “We could have lost Alaska?!”

A case in point: the NRC just licensed the first new nuclear reactor in three decades.

Here’s the digest. It ends with a new upbeat anti-nuclear video by young surfer/filmmaker Kyle Thiermann.

We May Yet Lose Tokyo… Not to Mention Alaska… and Now Georgia, Too
by Harvey Wasserman
Published on Friday, February 10, 2012 by Common Dreams
As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves a construction/operating license for two new reactors in Georgia, alarming reports from Japan indicate the Fukushima catastrophe is far from over.

Thousands of tons of intensely radioactive spent fuel are still in serious jeopardy. Radioactive trash and water are spewing into the environment. And nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen reports that during the string of disasters following March 11, 2011’s earthquake and tsunami, Fukushima 1’s containment cap may actually have lifted off its base, releasing dangerously radioactive gasses and opening a gap for an ensuing hydrogen explosion….

…With bitter debate raging in Japan, the US and elsewhere over the killing power of Fukushima’s emissions, the certification of a new US reactor design may someday be remembered as a bizarre epitaph for the 20th century’s most expensive failed technology.

Without state ratepayers and federal taxpayers being forced to foot the bill, new reactor construction in the US is going nowhere.

And without a final resolution to the on-going horrors at Fukushima, the entire planet, from Tokyo to Alaska to Georgia and beyond, remains at serious radioactive risk. Read more.

Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Wins First Reactor Construction Permit In A Generation
Lucia Graves
huffingtonpost.com
WASHINGTON — Federal safety officials voted 4-to-1 to approve the first nuclear reactor construction permit in almost 35 years, overriding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko.

The commission’s vote on Thursday will allow Southern Company subsidiary Georgia Power to expand operations at its plant in eastern Georgia, paving the way for the construction of two new nuclear power reactors at its Vogtle site. The last such project to be approved was in 1978.

Chairman Jaczko in his dissenting vote cited concerns stemming from Fukushima, underscoring long-standing tensions on the commission over the regulatory response to Japan’s 2011 nuclear power disaster.

“I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened,” Jaczko said after the vote at the commission’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Jaczko had requested a binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements currently planned would be enacted before the facility begins operations. Southern Company refused to meet this stipulation.
Read more.

US licenses first nuclear reactors since 1978
By Miguel Llanos, msnbc.com
Updated at 1:25 p.m. ET: It’s been 34 years — and several nuclear accidents later — but a divided federal panel on Thursday licensed a utility to build nuclear reactors in the U.S. for the first time since 1978.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s chairman, Gregory Jaczko, opposed licensing the two reactors at this time even though he had earlier praised their design.

“There is still more work” to be done to ensure that lessons learned from Japan’s Fukushima disaster last year are engrained in the reactor design, he told his colleagues. “I cannot support this licensing as if Fukushima never happened. I believe it requires some type of binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements that are currently projected and currently planned to be made would be made before the operation of the facility.”

“There is no amnesia,” responded Commissioner Kristine Svinick, speaking for the 4-1 majority and noting that the industry has been directed to adopt those lessons.
The licensing covers two reactors estimated to cost $14 billion that the Southern Company wants to add to its existing Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia. Preliminary work has already begun and plans are for the first new reactor to be operating in 2016. Read more.

Emails reveal panic at U.S. nuclear agency as experts were kept in the dark following Fukushima disaster
• One email reads: ‘We have very little factual information as an agency’
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission inundated with requests over safety of U.S. nuclear facilities in wake of disaster
• Experts disagreed over best way to contain Fukushima disaster
• Worst-case scenario would have seen high levels of radiation reach Alaska

By Wil Longbottom – Daily Mail
Emails posted on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission website after the Fukushima disaster last March have revealed the agency was kept in the dark about the scale of the crisis.

The correspondence, posted after the earthquake and tsunami caused catastrophic damage to the nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan, reveals experts in the U.S. disagreed over how to deal with the disaster.

And while assuring the U.S. population that there was no danger, the NRC did not disclose a worst-case scenario which could have seen high levels of radiation affecting Alaska if Fukushima could not be brought under control.

New Containment Flaw Identified in the BWR Mark 1
Fairewinds Nuclear Update
Fairewinds shows that the nuclear industry’s plan to vent the containment at Fukushima Daiichi could not have prevented a containment failure and the ensuing explosions. Look at the graphics from the containment stress tests conducted more than 40 years ago at a US nuclear reactor identical to Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1. This video and its graphics provide important clues about why Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 exploded.

New Containment Flaw Identified in the BWR Mark 1 from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.

Emails Show Panic Within US Nuke Agency in Wake of Fukushima Disaster
US experts for Nuclear Regulatary Commission disagreed over best way to contain ongoing nuclear disaster
– Common Dreams staff – Published on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Emails posted on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) website show an agency that was ill-informed about the state of the crisis taking place at the failing Fukushima nuclear plant last year in Japan. The emails reveal some of the mitigation plans advisers to the NRC were contemplating, show an agency reluctant to share its own research on spent fuel pools, and unwilling to articulate worst-case scenarios, including a nuclear fallout plan for Alaska.

Shining the Light on the Triple Meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi
Fairewinds – Video Nuclear Update
There were ample warnings that both TEPCO and Japan’s regulators ignored steps that would have prevented this tragedy. Throughout the world, nuclear oversight has been compromised by the revolving door and cozy relationship between the nuclear industry and the so-called nuclear regulators who promote nuclear power rather than regulate.

Shining the Light on the Triple Meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.

Nuke dangers nowhere near resolved: Kan’s crisis adviser
By REIJI YOSHIDA
Staff writer – Japan Times
In December, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced the “conclusion” of the meltdown crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, saying Tokyo Electric Power Co. was managing to keep the three crippled reactors cool, as well as the facility’s spent fuel pools.

But a former special adviser to Naoto Kan, who was prime minister when the crisis started, warned that the situation is far from resolved and said Fukushima has exposed a raft of serious nuclear problems that Japan will have to confront for years.
“I would say (the crisis) just opened Pandora’s box,” Hiroshi Tasaka, who has a doctorate in nuclear engineering and is now a professor at Tama University, said in a recent interview with The Japan Times.

He was one of a select group who glimpsed the secret worst-case scenario document written up by the Japan Atomic Energy Commission on March 25 that was later reportedly quashed by the government.

According to the scenario, the biggest risk during the meltdown crisis wasn’t the reactors themselves but the spent fuel pools sitting atop them, particularly the one above reactor 4, which still contains about 1,500 nuclear fuel assemblies, Tasaka said.
Read more.

Nobel Winner Oe Urges Japan to Decommission Nuclear Reactors
By Chisaki Watanabe – Bloomberg
Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) — Japan should decide quickly to abandon its nuclear reactors, according to Nobel Prize laureate Kenzaburo Oe.
“If we are to take ethical responsibility for children of tomorrow, we need to decide now to abandon all reactors,” the 77-year old author said today at a press conference at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan.

“Another severe nuclear accident could occur,” said Oe, who is among the nine founding members of the “Sayonara Nuclear Power Plants” campaign launched last June. “There is no proof it won’t happen again.”

The initiative aims to collect 10 million signatures to urge the government to phase out nuclear power generation and shift to clean energy and energy-saving measures. So far, 5 million signatures have been collected, said Satoshi Kamata, a freelance journalist and another founding member.

Rising temperatures at Fukushima raise questions over stability of nuclear plant
Justin McCurry in Tokyo – guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 February 2012 23.52 EST
Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant say they are regaining control of a reactor after its temperature rose dramatically this week, casting doubt on government claims that the facility has been stabilised. Read more.

San Onofre nuclear reactor unit shut down; SCE plans repair of steam generator tube leak
February 3, 2012 – Source: Southern California Edison

Southern California Edison (SCE) (NYSE:EIX), operator of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, continues to plan for the repair of the steam generator tube leak in Unit 3 following a precautionary shutdown January 31. Sensitive monitoring instruments at Unit 3 continue to show no change in radiation levels that would be detectable off-site.

Operators responded quickly to indications of a steam generator tube leak based on readings from highly sensitive instruments designed to detect this condition, and in time to take action to prevent any potential change in detectable radiation exposure outside the plant boundary. Operators safely shut the nuclear power plant down and isolated the component that contained the leaking tube within four hours of detecting the indications.

Currently, operators are cooling down Unit 3 and reducing pressure in the plant, which is the method to stop the tube from leaking. They are meticulously following prescribed procedures written specifically for addressing a tube leak condition.

San Onofre, We’ve Got a Problem – by by Joieau – Daily Kos – Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 05:16 PM PST

That’s a diagram of Mitsubishi Heavy Industry’s PWR and APSR steam generator, with the pieces-parts labeled. In case anyone missed my diary of last night, San Onofre: “Unprecedented” Steam Generator Tube Failure, Unit 3 of the San Clemente nuke had to shut down on Tuesday of this week because a leak in one (or both) of its RSGs [Replacement Steam Generators, installed in January of 2011] set off radiation alarms in the auxiliary building. Inspection of Unit 2’s RSGs was conducted yesterday because that plant is down for outage, and “unusual” tube wear was discovered in more than 800 of the more than 9,500 tubes that carry superheated, pressurized reactor coolant water [~600ºF] into the SGs to heat secondary feedwater to steam to turn the turbines and generate electricity. Unit 2’s RSGs were also manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and were installed in the fall of 2009.
Here is a link to a DOE report from their Energy Information Administration/Electric Power Monthly, published in August of 1995 which explains in some detail the function of Steam Generators in a PWR nuclear power plant, and what can go wrong with SGs. Which along with the reactor itself are the most expensive components of a nuclear generating plant. It’s worth a read just to get the general overview of why these non-reactor components are so important.
Steam Generator Degredation and Its Impact on Continued Operation of Pressurized Water Reactors in the United States [pdf]

Apparently there was a little manufacturing problem with SONGS’ Unit 3 RSGs, that everyone involved knew about at the time. Here is the NRC’s Information Notice to license holders on that very issue, from April of 2010 –

NRC: Welding Defects in Replacement Steam Generators [pdf]
Read more.

ENERGY: Electricity market unperturbed by offline nuke plant
Eric Wolff – North County Times
California has so much excess electricity-generating capacity, the shutdown of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station last week had no impact on wholesale electricity prices, data from the California Independent System Operator showed.
The impact was lessened by the timing of the outage. Californians use less power in winter, thanks to a mild climate and a relative dearth of electric heaters.
“It goes back to the fact that you have fairly low demand levels,” said Travis Miller, an electricity and utilities analyst at Morningstar Inc. “You have all this spare capacity, a huge amount of gas plant capacity that’s not running at any time during the day. You can replace that 20 percent during the day with those.” Read more.

Nuclear Hot Seat
Radio – Libbe HaLevy
In the wake of all the bad news from San Onofre in the past week (radiation leak in Unit 2, over 800 damaged pipes found in Unit 3, worker falls into refueling pond), I interviewed James Chambers, a licensed nuclear reactor operator and whistleblower, on the difference between what the mainstream media is saying and what these problems might mean.  Please share. His interpretation is timely and important.

Go to Nuclear Hot Seat Podcast here.
Here’s the audio player: chambers42573c97-9c90-9008-b72b-fdb6702ad773
Here’s the download link.

Also on Nuclear HotSeat:
Nuclear Hotseat Podcast for February 7, 2012
* Interview w/Mary Olson, Director of the SE office of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS.org), on increased radiation risks to women and children as well as national perspectives on the anti-nuclear movement;
* San Onofre problems continue (SEE: Nuclear Hotseat Special Report);
* Fukushima 2 reactor increasing heat while TEPCO injects borax; radiation cloud over New Zealand;
* Fire at a nuclear research center in Moscow;
* Nuke accidents in France, North Anna, and Prairie Island in Minnesota;
* Radioactive fish in Vermont and dying bird populations at Fukushima.

Fire at Moscow nuclear institute, Russia says no risk
By Alexei Anishchuk – Reuters
MOSCOW | Sun Feb 5, 2012 1:18pm EST
MOSCOW (Reuters) – There was no risk of a radiation leak after a fire broke out at a Moscow nuclear research centre housing a non-operational 60-year-old atomic reactor on Sunday, said officials, but Greenpeace Russia expressed serious concern about the incident. Read more.

Press Release IPPNW Germany
Spikes of radioactive emissions during inspection and refuelling

For the first time anywhere in the world, recent German data reveal huge spikes in radioactive releases during the refuelling of NPPs.

In September 2011, Gundremmingen NPP located between Ulm and Augsburg in Southern Germany emitted  much larger amounts of radioactive noble gases during inspection/refuelling  than are emitted during normal power operation. According to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) in Germany, the normal emission concentration during the rest of the year is about 3 kBq/m³, but during inspection/refuelling (in the afternoon and evening of September 22nd) this concentration abruptly increased to ~700 kBq/m³ with a peak of 1,470 kBq/m³. In the following days (September 22nd – 29th), the concentrations of released radioactive noble gases were still much higher (average = 100 kBq/m³) than during normal power operation.

A possible mechanism explaining leukemia clusters close to German and French nuclear power plants?
Image courtesy of German IPPNWThe German affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War has published analysis showing large releases of radioactivity during “routine” re-fuelling of atomic reactors in Bavaria. The releases are hundreds of times higher than what is considered a “normal” release. The German IPPNW warns that fetuses would be especially vulnerable to these radioactive hazards. This physical, chemical, and biological delivery mechanism of radioactivity into fetal tissue is one possible explanation for statistically significant increases in childhood leukemia rates detected near nuclear power plants by German and French government health studies, which officially have “no explanation.”

Anti-Nuclear Tokyo Mayor Challenges Big Utilities
By George Nishiyama – WSJ-Japan
Tokyo’s Setagaya ward is over 260 km away from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, a long way from the evacuation area imposed by the Japanese government after last year’s March 11 disasters. Read more.

David Lochbaum: “The NRC Is Not Doing Its Job”NPR
A nuclear engineer, Lochbaum is director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He’s found that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has successfully intervened in some critical situations and dropped the ball in others. “The biggest concern I’ve had with the NRC over the years I’ve been monitoring them is lack of consistency,” he says. “They’re a little bit slow at solving known safety problems.” This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Nov. 29, 2011.
… Would you consider yourself a critic of the nuclear industry?
We’re critics, but we’re not an anti-nuclear organization. We’re a pro-safety or safety advocate.
If a safety problem is identified, we want to see that problem fixed. The only fix isn’t shutting the plant down permanently, taking away the keys. It could be just fixing the safety problem and allowing the plant to operate safely into the future. …
When Fukushima happened, I suppose it’s an article of faith in your business that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. Is that what happened?
UCS’s founder, Henry Kendall, used to say that you can’t have but one half of a boat sink. They are basically all in the same boat.
So the accident at Fukushima does affect plants worldwide, and should affect it. It’s a learning exercise. You try to learn from things that work well as well as things that don’t work so well.

SAN ONOFRE: NRC say leak may have caused minor radiation release at San Onofre
BY PAUL SISSON psisson@nctimes.com North County Times |

An official with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday that a water leak this week at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station could have released a small amount of radiation into the atmosphere, contradicting an earlier statement by plant owner Southern California Edison.

Victor Dricks, a spokesman for the NRC, said a small release could have occurred because the leaking component at San Onofre’s Unit 3 reactor vents into a building outside the reactor’s towering containment dome. That building is not sealed or pressurized, he said.

“We know that it vented some radioactive gases into the auxiliary building because that’s what triggered the radiation alarm that told them they had a leak,” Dricks said.
Whether the gas got out of the unsealed building is not known. Dricks said that any gas that might have escaped would be considered a “very low-level release.”
Read more.

‪FRYING DUTCHMAN humanERROR‬ video

Vt. Yankee owner wants $4.6 million in legal fees
Rutland Herald. VT.
Attorneys for Entergy Nuclear have filed a request in U.S. District Court in Brattleboro seeking attorneys fees from the state of Vermont and other parties in its lawsuit over the continued operation of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

The motion states that Entergy has so far spent $4.62 million on the lawsuit, and it noted that in U.S. District Judge Garvan Murtha’s ruling of Jan. 20, that Entergy was entitled to attorney’s fees. Read more.

Stop valve at Vermont nuke fails during testing
The Brattleboro Reformer reported this afternoon:
Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon is on its way back up to full power after it powered down for a control rod adjustment on Monday.
A rod adjustment is performed every three months to keep the reactor operating at optimal power production.
During the power down, the plant’s turbine stop valves were tested and one of the valves malfunctioned. Read more.

Tepco: Frozen water ruptures pipes at Fukushima plant — Cooling system stops at Spent Fuel Pool No. 4
Summary:
• Tokyo Electric Power Company has found water leaks in 14 locations at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant
• Leaks apparently occurred after frozen water ruptured the pipes
• [Tepco said] leaked water did not contain any radioactive materials
• [Tepco] said about 40 liters of water leaked from a cooling system for a spent fuel pool at the No.4 reactor
• Leak forced the system to stop for one hour and 40 minutes, but the pool’s temperature did not rise
• Tokyo Electric said 7 tons of water had leaked from the No.6 reactor
• Ruptured pipes caused 3 water leaks on the previous day
• [Tepco] official Junichi Matsumoto admitted that the utility failed to take sufficient steps to prevent frozen pipes

report no longer online

Nuke inspectors focus on `unusual’ wear on tubes
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD; Associated Press
Published: 02/02/12 12:06 pm | Updated: 02/03/12 1:21 am
LOS ANGELES — The integrity of some equipment installed in 2009 at Southern California’s San Onofre Unit 2 nuclear plant is drawing concern after unusual wear was found on hundreds of tubes that carry radioactive water.
Thursday’s disclosure came two days after a tube leak at the plant’s other unit prompted operators to shut down the reactor as a precaution. A tiny amount of radiation could have escaped, but officials say workers and the public were not endangered.
The problems at Unit 2 were discovered during inspections of a steam generator, after the plant 45 miles north of San Diego was taken off-line for maintenance and refueling. The two huge steam generators at Unit 2, each containing 9,700 tubes, were replaced in fall 2009, and a year later in its twin plant, Unit 3, as part of a $670 million overhaul.
Read more here.

Bird numbers plummet around stricken Fukushima plant
David McNeill The Independent
Researchers working around Japan’s disabled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant say bird populations there have begun to dwindle, in what may be a chilling harbinger of the impact of radioactive fallout on local life.

In the first major study of the impact of the world’s worst nuclear crisis in 25 years, the researchers, from Japan, the US and Denmark, said their analysis of 14 species of bird common to Fukushima and Chernobyl, the Ukrainian city which suffered a similar nuclear meltdown, showed the effect on abundance is worse in the Japanese disaster zone.
The study, published next week in the journal Environmental Pollution, suggests that its findings demonstrate “an immediate negative consequence of radiation for birds during the main breeding season [of] March [to] July”. Read more.

caption: A former yakuza in Oi, Fukui Prefecture, dispatched workers to nuclear power plants. He used to allocate three workers per three-tatami-mat room. “You could make money easily if you simply had a telephone line,” he said. (Kazuyuki Ito)
Yakuza labor structure formed base of nuclear industry – Asahi Shimbun
In a rural area 15 kilometers southwest of the Oi nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture, a business office displays the signboard of a construction company. But inside, a 67-year-old man wearing a black knit cap and wrapped up in a blanket while watching television indicates that the company is more of a temp staff agency for nuclear power plant work.

“Do you want to know about worker staffing?” he says, as he narrows his eyes and grimaces. “That was lucrative. When I was asked to gather up 10 workers, I called up yakuza and construction dealers.”

His said his work involved “disguised subcontracts.” Under the system, a subcontractor provides temporary staff to a general contractor, and they work under the instructions of the general contractor. The practice is illegal under the Employment Security Law, which is designed to protect the rights of workers and to ensure proper working conditions for them.

But the practice has remained widespread for years at nuclear plants around the nation, according to sources. Read more.

Fla. sen. tries to repeal statute that would let energy corps. charge for non-existent plants
By Virginia Chamlee – American Independent
Friday, February 03, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
Florida Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, has filed an amendment to a Senate committee’s energy bill in an effort to repeal a statute that allows energy companies to charge their customers for nuclear power plants that may never be built.

The filing was spurred by a settlement agreement reached last month between Progress Energy and state regulators over a nuclear power plant in Levy County. The agreement specifically addresses outstanding issues with the company’s nuclear plant at Crystal River, which was closed for repairs in 2009 and hasn’t opened since. Progress Energy’s customers will ultimately foot the $1.1 billion bill for the development of the Levy plant, and have so far already paid for half — but the company recently received the right to cancel construction on that proposed plant, meaning customers might be paying for something that is never built. Read more.

Xcel says there’s no risk as Prairie Island spills radioactive water again
By Tad Vezner and Leslie Brooks Suzukamo
Pioneer Press
Posted:   02/08/2012 12:01:00 AM CST
Updated:   02/08 12:38:20 AM
Radioactive water has spilled from Xcel Energy’s Prairie Island nuclear power plant near Red Wing, Minn., on two recent occasions, according to notifications the utility sent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this month. Read more.

Startup problem shuts Byron 2 for 2nd time in 2 weeks
Reuters
1:08 p.m. CST, February 7, 2012
Exelon Corp.’s 1,136-megawatt Unit 2 at the Byron nuclear power plant in Illinois shut by late Monday soon after ramping up to 25 percent power earlier in the day, due to a turbine trip, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said.

The plant had been shut down last week, after reporting a loss of offsite power a day earlier. Read more.

UPDATE 1-Exelon Ill. Byron 2 returns to service
Feb 7 (Reuters) – Exelon Corp’s 1,136-megawatt Unit 2 at the Byron nuclear power plant in Illinois has been reconnected to the electrical grid and began producing electricity by Tuesday afternoon, the company said.
The unit shut Jan. 30 when power to an insulator in the facility’s switchyard failed.
Repairs to the insulator were completed along with maintenance and inspection tasks while the unit was offline, Exelon said.
Byron 1 was operating at full power, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brand new replacement parts failing at atomic reactors
A tube rupture in a brand new replacement steam generator at San Onofre Unit 3 last week, and a defective brand new replacement reactor head at Palisades, show that safety significant structures at atomic reactors are of questionable integrity and quality assurance. Three Mile Island and Arkansas Nuclear One have also experienced premature degradation of new replacement steam generators, manufactured by Areva of France.

Michigan’s Palisades nuclear plant may be named one of nation’s 5 worst

The Palisades nuclear power plant, which sits on the shores of Lake Michigan, could soon be downgraded by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to a status making it among the nation’s five worst-performing nuclear plants after a year of accidents, unexpected shutdowns and safety violations.

The regional head of the NRC said last week that if performance does not improve, the agency would not hesitate to shut down the plant. Palisades is one of the nation’s 10 oldest nuclear plants, and after hitting its 40-year life-span in 2011, its license was extended until 2031.

“Quite frankly, we find your performance troubling, and it declined in 2011,” regional administration Cynthia Pederson said in a rare public rebuke of the plant owned by Entergy Nuclear Operations. Read more.

Three Mile Island nuclear plant finds unexpected flaws in new steam generators
Published: Thursday, January 26, 2012, 6:33 PM     Updated: Friday, January 27, 2012, 8:54 AM DONALD GILLILAND, The Patriot-News

After just one operating cycle, inspectors at Three Mile Island nuclear facility have detected unexpected flaws in the facility’s new steam generators.
There’s no indication radiation was released.

Officials say the flaws are well below regulatory thresholds, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a meeting Thursday morning to get more information.

The two 70-foot, 510-ton “once-through” generators sit on either side of the nuclear core, and were installed at TMI in 2009.

Each cost more than $140 million. Read more.

‪Surfing For Change: J Bay Nuclear Plant
Kelly Slater Van Jones Foster Gamble (2012)‬
https://youtu.be/Bbcp0UOD3bs

=======
To help keep EON’s work going, please check out all the support options on our Donation Page or you can also send a check made out to EON to EON, POB 1047, Bolinas, CA
Or…just:

“Pay Up and We Won’t Break Your Kneecaps”
That’s the essential spirit and message of the opt-out policy authored by CPUC President Michael Peevey and approved by four of the five Commissioners on February 1, 2012.  (Where was Mike Florio?)

The unpopular decision came after over an hour of  50 public comments unanimously condemning the policy from customers, many of whom described serious health effects from the wireless ‘smart’ meters already installed in their homes, apartments and neighborhoods.

The new policy allows individual customers to retain their analog meters or have ‘smart’ meters replaced with analog meters by paying a one-time fee of $75 and a monthly fee of $10 ($10 up front and $5/mo. for low income.) Customers have until May 1 to make their decision by visiting this PG&E webpage or calling 866-743-0263. The so-called ‘delay list’ is terminated.

Rolling Back the Roll-Out
The ruling, despite its serious flaws, should be seen as a victory for the movement in opposition to the ‘smart meter’ build-out, a movement that is growing across the country and around the world, with California one of the epicenters. In that sense it is proof that persistent resistance is fertile, and industry observers both domestic and international are watching developments in California closely, blindsided as they have been by the vehemence of the public backlash against the mass deployment of wireless meters.

PG&E is now saying it supports ‘individual choice for residential customers when it comes to the meter at their home.’ But they know they’ve been beaten back from their original ‘There-Is-No-Alternative,’ ‘Resistance-Is-Futile’ technocratic totalitarian stance.

Well-intentioned, but misinformed advocates of a world-wide, wireless energy grid are watching developments in California and elsewhere with consternation as their ill-conceived agenda begins to unravel due to massive and growing science-based public opposition and the plan’s own internal technical problems.

Here, in three segments, is our video coverage of (1) the public comment period; (2) the Commissioners’ pre-vote statements, and (3) public reactions after the vote. EON’s position on the decision follows below, as well as recent news reports.

California ‘Smart’ Meter Opt-Out Decision 2-1-2012 – Part 1 – Public Pre-Decision Comments

California ‘Smart’ Meter Opt-Out Decision 2-1-2012 – Part 2 Commissioners’ Statements

“Our Health is Not for Sale!”
Public Responses to CPUC’s Smart Meter Opt-Out Ruling – Post-Decision Interviews

Partial Victory
EON and so many others have protested since the beginning of their ‘smart’ meter rollout and have joined other organizations as official interveners in the CPUC Opt-Out Proceeding.

While we welcome the opportunity given to customers to retain their analog meters, we oppose the charging of fees.

The Community wide and ‘wireless meter safe zones’ aspect should have been considered first, not relegated to the second phase. Protection from meters cannot merely be one at a time because of the mesh network’s adverse health effect. In order to have true protection, many would be forced to pay for their neighbor’s fees and can’t afford it.

In situations where the utility bill is in an uncaring landlord’s name, or when one customer has multiple accounts, the fee of $75 up front per account and $10/month extra is prohibitive. If one resident becomes injured by overexposure to RF/EMF and opts out, but the neighbors aren’t sensitized yet or don’t have the money or the willingness to pay the extra fee, the injured resident faces paying all the neighbor’s fees to protect themselves. Very few will be able to afford it. Where can these people live safely?

People suffering harm from the intense emissions can still be harmed by the mesh network surrounding them, since removing one meter will not stop harm from neighboring meters. This is why it’s so important for us to have community wide opt out. Due to organized community pressure there are 10 counties, 38 cities and towns and one Native American tribe that have passed resolutions or moratoriums against forced installation. Hopefully community wide opt outs will be worked out in phase two of the CPUC proceeding on the opt out issue.

Pres. Peevey declares that wireless smart meters are the basis for the smart grid and that’s the ‘new standard.’ But Peevey, the other Commissioners and industry still don’t understand the health problem.

With this interim decision, the wireless mesh network will still be in place, bouncing from 10,000 to 190,000 pulses of high frequency RF signals from each meter to each neighbor’s meters and then to a data collector unit on a utility pole, which also concentrates exposure. When there are multiple meters, as in an apartment complex, or when there are homes built close together, or multiple meters on a home, or homes that have meters outside a frequently used living area or bedroom, these RF emissions are even more intense.

The technocrats and industry see these meters as a huge growth industry and can’t fathom the consumer backlash. Yet many see this wireless meter debacle as continuing the pattern of PG&E’s record of wanton safety violations and disregard for customers , like Hinkley, Diablo Canyon and San Bruno.

To be forced to pay to NOT have a device that emits a class 2B carcinogen on one’s home, we believe, is extortion.

Background: Because 15% of PG&E territory is in hilly and mountainous terrain, the RF signals are designed to travel one mile according to a tech rep from Silver Springs, the manufacturer of PG&E’s meters. These intense bursts of millisecond high frequency RF pulse 24/7 from each electric meter – though actual data transmission time is only on average, 45 seconds/day. The other thousands of pulses, called ‘chirps’ are to maintain the mesh network from house to house. Additionally, there are constant high frequency RF emissions from the switch mode power supply that transforms the AC current from the utility pole 240v to the approximately 5v DC current needed to run the electronics in the meter. This pulsing, staccato of radiofrequency radiation gets into the wiring throughout the house and throughout the adjacent wires, causing ‘dirty electricity.’ Exposure to these all these sources of radiofrequency radiation, in addition to wireless home routers, wi-fi, cordless phones, local cell towers, etc., is what is making people sick.

The CPUC frequently reminds us that they are not in the business of determining health issues and refuses to acknowledge the massive science showing severe health impacts from RF radiation. Current FCC guidelines are obsolete and don’t refer at all to the situation we all face now of chronic long-term exposure to exponentially rising levels of RF/EMF radiation. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote directly to  Pres. Peevey to halt the ‘smart’ meter rollout immediately, calling this “an issue of the highest importance.”

And the health issue is in addition to the safety, security and privacy/surveillance issues with wireless meters

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Weighs In Against Wireless Meters

From the recent AAEM letter to Peevey: What They Officially Recommend:

The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine also wishes to note that the US NIEHS National Toxicology Program in 1999 cited radiofrequency radiation as a potential carcinogen. Existing safety limits for pulsed RF were termed “not protective of public health” by the Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (a federal interagency working group including the FDA, FCC, OSHA, the EPA and others). Emissions given off by “smart meters” have been classified by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Possible Human Carcinogen.

Hence, we call for:

• An immediate moratorium on “smart meter” installation until these serious public health issues are resolved. Continuing with their installation would be extremely irresponsible.

• Modify the revised proposed decision to include hearings on health impact in the second proceedings, along with cost evaluation and community wide opt-out.

• Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog meters.
[ Download PDF here. ]

NEWS COVERAGE
The Industry Response – Impact by “Vocal, Well-Organized Minority” Equals “Mob Rule”

California: mob rule on analog opt-out solution?
PG&E’s, CPUC’s favored options may be discarded
Phil Carson | Jan 31, 2012
Today, let’s dip back into the CPUC’s proposed decision for a closer look at some of the objections to PG&E’s suggested solutions and regulators’ takes on those objections. Read more.

From health claims to Orwellian accusations, CPUC decision stings some
PG&E opt-out option doesn’t sooth anti-smart meter antagonists
Kate Rowland | Feb 02, 2012
As I have noted before, a critical piece of the intelligent utility is the intelligent consumer. In my opinion, the latter was sorely lacking in the public input portion of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Feb. 1 business meeting.

As I watched the video coverage yesterday, I was struck nearly dumb by some of the continued public outrage against the CPUC’s proposed decision on agenda item 28, the modification of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E’s) smart meter program.
Any good debater knows that it’s imperative to keep emotion out of the argument. And yet, high emotions (and, in at least one case, downright delusion) ruled the day as nearly 60 people stood up to speak, and many ran over their one-minute time allotment.  

As I listened, I realized that not one word of what PG&E and other utilities in California (not to mention the rest of the country) have been trying to do to educate customers has penetrated even the first layer of understanding for these particular folks. They know what they know, despite scientific evidence to the contrary [sic]. Read more.

CPUC Approves PG&E SmartMeter Opt Out Charge
February 1, 2012 12:10 PM – video
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) – California regulators said Pacific Gas & Electric Co. can start charging its customers fees to avoid having wireless utility meters installed in their homes.

State regulators to vote on PG&E smart meter “opt-out”
By Dana Hull dhull@mercurynews.com
Posted:   02/01/2012 06:07:55 AM PST

In a move being closely watched by utilities across the country, state regulators are expected to vote Wednesday to give PG&E customers the right to “opt out” of having a smart meter and keep their old meters — for a fee.

The opt-out proposal, crafted by California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey after months of discussion and debate, comes after a year of highly organized protests by consumers opposed to smart meters because of concerns about their accuracy, privacy implications and impact on health….

Vast network
Pacific Gas & Electric plans to install about 9.7 million smart meters on homes and businesses throughout its vast Northern California territory. So far, about 90 percent of all smart meters are installed, with deployment on track to be completed by the end of this year.

It’s unclear how many of PG&E’s more than 6 million customers will pay to keep their old meter. Many smart meter opponents fiercely oppose having to pay to keep analog meters, and others say they cannot afford the fees.

“Yes, we want the analog meters,” said Sandi Maurer of Sebastopol, who opposes smart meters because of health concerns and does not have one. “But we are beyond mad about the fees. This is extortion. Read more.

SAN FRANCISCO: Critics decry CPUC’s approval of SmartMeter opt-out fees
The California Public Utilities Commission voted Wednesday to impose fees on PG&E customers who choose to opt out of the utility’s SmartMeter program. Patti Lee reports for Channel 2 News at 5.

CPUC agrees to PG&E smart meter opt-out plan – angry meter opponents don’t
By Doug Peeples
SGN News Editor

In the best of all possible worlds, the California Public Utilities Commission decision today to approve Pacific Gas & Electric’s smart meter opt-out plan for customers who don’t want them would be the end of the story.  But it’s incredibly unlikely to turn out that way.

While PG&E’s plan gives smart meter opponents the option of getting their analog meters back, it’s going to cost them: a $75 upfront fee and a monthly charge of $10 and for low income customers, a $10 up front fee and $5 a month.

After what the San Jose Mercury News described as a “raucous” commission meeting in which the proposal was approved, one woman was quoted as screaming, “This is a crime against humanity!” The clamor from meter opponents during the meeting apparently was so disruptive that CPUC President Michael Peevey called for security guards to clear the room. Another opponent said customers would refuse to pay the fees and that personal injury and class action lawsuits would be on the way.

Smart meter opponents from Maine to California have long contended that the meters are health, privacy and safety hazards. Read more.

=======
To help keep EON’s work going, please check out all the support options on our Donation Page or you can also send a check made out to EON to EON, POB 1047, Bolinas, CA
Or…just:

Why the ‘Nuclear Rebirth’ is DOA
In this edition we review recent posts surveying the post-Fukushima nuclear landscape.

BREAKING:
After Possible Leak Detected, SONGS Shuts Down Unit 3 Generator
San Clemente Times – Jan 31, 2012

A precautionary shutdown of Unit 3 at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was begun this afternoon when sensors installed to detect a possible leak were set off in one of the unit’s steam generator tubes, according to a news release from Southern California Edison, which operates the power plant.

“The potential leak poses no imminent danger to the public or plant workers,” the utility company said in its statement. “There has been no release to the atmosphere.”

SCE Spokesman Gil Alexander said the sensors detected a leak of water from a closed loop used as part of the overall generator.

As of 6:30 p.m., no emergency classification has been needed or issued under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a result of the event, Alexander said. Read more.

Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation
ONLINE READER by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky –

The World is at a critical crossroads. The Fukushima disaster in Japan has brought to the forefront the dangers of Worldwide nuclear radiation.

The crisis in Japan has been described as “a nuclear war without a war”. In the words of renowned novelist Haruki Murakami:

“This time no one dropped a bomb on us … We set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own lands, and we are destroying our own lives.”

Nuclear radiation –which threatens life on planet earth– is not front page news in comparison to the most insignificant issues of public concern, including the local level crime scene or the tabloid gossip reports on Hollywood celebrities.

While the long-term repercussions of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are yet to be fully assessed, they are far more serious than those pertaining to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, which resulted in almost one million deaths (New Book Concludes – Chernobyl death toll: 985,000, mostly from cancer Global Research, September 10, 2010, See also Matthew Penney and Mark Selden The Severity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster: Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima, Global Research, May 25, 2011)

Moreover, while all eyes were riveted on the Fukushima Daiichi plant, news coverage both in Japan and internationally failed to fully acknowledge the impacts of a second catastrophe at TEPCO’s (Tokyo Electric Power Co Inc) Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant.

The shaky political consensus both in Japan, the U.S. and Western Europe is that the crisis at Fukushima has been contained.

The realties, however, are otherwise. Read more.

Eminent Domain and the Fight Against Nuclear Power
by Karl Grossman – Published on Monday, January 23, 2012 by Common Dreams

The nuclear power program in the United States was set up rigged—to allow the federal government to push atomic energy with state and local governments “pre-empted” on most issues.

That’s what the State of Vermont was confronted with last week as a federal judge blocked the state’s attempts to shut down the accident-plagued Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

But there’s a way around this federal nuclear fix—the use by states of their power of “eminent domain.” That’s a legal principle going back centuries and is how, commonly, states condemn property for a highway right-of-way if the owners refuse to sell.

The application of the state’s power of “eminent domain” to nuclear power was pioneered in New York State in the 1980s—and was how the completed Shoreham nuclear plant was stopped from opening. That ended the scheme of nuclear promoters to turn Long Island into a “nuclear park” with seven to 11 nuclear plants.

The Long Island Power Act was passed by New York State in 1985 creating a Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) with the power to seize the assets and stock of the utility behind this nuclear scheme, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO). Read more.

Japan using Fukushima people as human Guinnea Pigs

Byron nuclear reactor shut down after power loss
January 30, 2012 (BYRON, Ill.) (WLS) — A nuclear reactor at a northern Illinois plant shut down Monday after losing power, and steam was being vented to reduce pressure, according to officials from Exelon Nuclear and federal regulators.

Unit 2 at Byron Generating Station, about 95 miles northwest of Chicago, shut down at 10:18 a.m., after losing power, Exelon officials said. Diesel generators began supplying power to the plant, and operators began releasing steam to cool the reactor from the part of the plant where turbines are producing electricity, not from within the nuclear reactor itself, officials said.

Occupied: Japanese Nuclear Foes Defy Order to Remove Tents
Occupying the Grounds of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
– Common Dreams staff – Published on Saturday, January 28, 2012 by Common Dreams

Japanese anti-nuclear protesters defied a government order Friday to vacate the area in front of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in Tokyo’s Kasumigaseki. Protesters have been occupying the Ministry grounds since Sept. 11, 2011.

Childhood Leukemia Spikes Near Nuclear Power Plants
By John LaForge, CounterPunch 28 January 12

French researchers have confirmed that childhood leukemia rates are shockingly elevated among children living near nuclear power reactors.

The “International Journal of Cancer” has published in January a scientific study establishing a clear correlation between the frequency of acute childhood leukemia and proximity to nuclear power stations. The paper is titled, “Childhood leukemia around French nuclear power plants – the Geocap study, 2002-2007.”

This devastating report promises to do for France what a set of 2008 reports did for Germany – which recently legislated a total phase-out of all its power reactors by 2022 (sooner if the Greens get their way).

The French epidemiology – conducted by a team from the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, or INSERM, the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, or IRSN, and the National Register of hematological diseases of children in Villejuif, outside Paris – demonstrates during the period from 2002-2007 in France the doubling of childhood leukemia incidence: the increase is up to 2.2 among children under age five.

The researchers note that they found no mechanistic proof of cause and effect, but could identify no other environmental factor that could produce the excess cancers. Read more.

Hanford: America’s Nuclear Nightmare
By Peter Eisler, USA Today 25 January 12

Even decades after scientists came here during World War II to create plutonium for the first atomic bomb, a new generation is struggling with an even more daunting task: cleaning up the radioactive mess.

The U.S. government is building a treatment plant to stabilize and contain 56 million gallons of waste left from a half-century of nuclear weapons production. The radioactive sludge is so dangerous that a few hours of exposure could be fatal. A major leak could contaminate water supplies serving millions across the Northwest. The cleanup is the most complex and costly environmental restoration ever attempted.

A USA TODAY investigation has found that the troubled, 10-year effort to build the treatment plant faces enormous problems just as it reaches what was supposed to be its final stage. Read more.

Beyond Nuclear response to publication of report by DOE’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future

News from Beyond Nuclear, For Immediate Release, January 26, 2012
Contact: Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist, Beyond Nuclear, office 301-270-2209 ext. 1, cell 240-462-3216

Press Statement by Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist at Beyond Nuclear, on the publication of the final report by the U.S. Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future

“Today the U.S. Department of Energy’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future unveiled the result of its two-year-long investigation into what to do with the accumulated radioactive waste at this country’s atomic reactors. By this year’s end, that waste will constitute a mountain 70 years high, with the first cupful generated on December 2, 1942 at Enrico Fermi’s Manhattan Project lab at the University of Chicago, when scientists first created a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.

There remains no viable solution for either the management or certainly the ‘disposal’ of radioactive waste. Yet, the one essential recommendation that is not contained in the DOE report is to stop making any more of it. While a child would never be allowed to continue piling up toys in his or her room indefinitely, failing to tidy up the mess, the nuclear industry continues to be permitted to manufacture some of the world’s most toxic detritus without a cleanup plan. Read more.

Environmentalists: Water supply endangered by nuclear plants

TRENTON — Environmental activists said in a report Tuesday that nearly 3.3 million New Jerseyans drink water from supplies at risk of contamination if there’s a leak or accident at a nuclear plant.

Speakers at a State House news conference called for nuclear plants to be shuttered or phased out, with no new plants developed, in favor of renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar. In the short term, they want independent safety reviews, immediate upgrades and regular groundwater tests.

“The dangers are too close to home. There’s too many New Jerseyans drinking water that would be at risk. You shouldn’t have to worry about getting cancer from drinking a glass of water,” said Jennifer Kim, an advocate with New Jersey Public Interest Research Group.

Kim said the report is the first to measure the number of people whose drinking water supplies are within range of a nuclear plant.

She said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided water intake data previously not released by the government, citing national security interests. Read more.

=======
To help keep EON’s work going, please check out all the support options on our Donation Page or you can also send a check made out to EON to EON, POB 1047, Bolinas, CA
Or…just:

‘Smart’ Meters Take the Lead in Whole-Body RF Exposure

Rising to the Occasion – Law Makers Follow the Facts
As the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) moves toward a decision on its ‘smart’ meter opt-out policy, Santa Cruz County officials have taken the lead in producing a health report and crafting a responsible response to the industry attempt to force wireless ‘smart’ meters on the entire population without scientific testing or informed democratic consent.  [ Download the PDF of here. ] While this revised proposed decision is a giant step forward in that it would allow the analog meters that are relatively safe and do not emit RF, it does not go far enough.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SUPERVISORS TAKE MULTIPLE ACTIONS AGAINST SMART METERS Nina Beety

A report by Santa Cruz County Health Officer Dr. Poki Stewart Namkung, casting serious doubt on Smart Meter safety and the adequacy of FCC guidelines to protect the public, was unanimously accepted by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. The board also approved renewing their Smart Meter moratorium ordinance, and will be adding their names to a petition to the California Public Utilities Commission circulating among county and city officials.

From the health department report “Health Risks Associated with Smart Meters”:

“Evidence is accumulating on the results of exposure to RF at non-thermal levels. including increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier in the head, harmful effects on sperm, double strand breaks in DNA which could lead to cancer genesis…”

“When it comes to nonthermal effects of RF, FCC guidelines are irrelevant and cannot be used for any claims of SmartMeter safety unless heat damage is involved.”

“There are no current, relevant public safety standards for pulsed RF involving chronic exposure of the public, nor of sensitive populations, nor of people with metal and medical implants…”

The report includes ways to reduce exposure to EMF from cell phones, wireless internet, and other wireless and EMF devices.

The full report, as well as the letter from Santa Cruz County CAO Susan Mauriello recommending today’s actions, is here.

Santa Cruz County Administrative Office: 831-454-2100
Santa Cruz County website.

Michigan Launches SM Probe
Elsewhere in the news, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) has launched an investigation into the deployment of smart meters by regulated electric utilities in Michigan.

Noting that electric customers and several municipalities have expressed concern about the deployment of smart meters by electric utilities operating in Michigan, the MPSC today opened a docket for the purpose of addressing these concerns to the degree possible, in light of the limits of the Commission’s statutory authority and expertise.

Today’s order directs all regulated electric utilities to submit information to the Commission in Case No. U-17000 by March 16 on the following topics:
* The electric utility’s existing plans for the deployment of smart meters in its service territory;
* The estimated cost of deploying smart meters throughout its service territory and any sources of funding;
* An estimate of the savings to be achieved by the deployment of smart meters;
* An explanation of any other non-monetary benefits that might be realized from the deployment of smart meters;
* Any scientific informa­tion known to the electric utility that bears on the safety of the smart meters to be deployed by that utility;
* An explanation of the type of information that will be gathered by the electric utility through the use of smart meters;
* An explanation of the steps that the electric utility intends to take to safeguard the privacy of the customer information so gathered;
* Whether the electric utility intends to allow customers to opt out of having a smart meter; and
* How the electric utility intends to recover the cost of an opt-out program, if one will exist.

Back to Santa Cruz
We post excerpts of the Santa Cruz documents below. You can download a PDF of the document package here.

County of Santa Cruz
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
701 OCEAN STREET, SUITE 520, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4073
(831) 454-2100 FAX: (831) 454-3420 TOO: (831) 454-2123
SUSAN MAURIELLO, J.D., COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
January 18, 2012
AGENDA: January 24,2012
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

SmartMeter Moratorium

Dear Members of the Board:
On December 13,2011, your Board directed this office to return today with a report on issues associated with the current SmartMeter moratorium ordinance, and information on the possible extension of the moratorium for an additional year. Your Board also directed the Public Health Offcer to return with an analysis of the research on the health effects of SmartMeters, and directed County Counsel to return with a report regarding the legality of a public utility refusing service to customers who are willing to pay for service and are willing to have an analog meter.

As your Board is aware, the California Public Utility Commission is considering PG&E’s
application for modification to PG&E’s SmartMeter proposal to include an option for residential customers who do not wish to have a wireless SmartMeter. The item was scheduled on the January 12, 2012 agenda, but the commission anticipates that a vote on the proposal will not happen prior to February 1,2012. Moratorium Ordinance
Your Board has heard significant amounts of testimony regarding SmartMeters and concerns about their possible impact on health, questions about their accuracy, their inability to recover real-time data, privacy concerns, and the lack of safety standards for chronic long-term exposure to electromagnetic frequency radiation. In addition, PG&E has not presented studies to support their primary justification that the SmartMeter program will encourage customers to more effectively manage their utilization of electricity.

Given the broad concern about SmartMeter technology and your Board’s desire to go on record, this offce and County Counsel believe that notwithstanding the enforcement challenges, that it is in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare for your Board to adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) implementing a temporary moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters in or on any home, apartment, condominium or business within the unincorporated area of the County. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow additional time to educate the CPUC about these concerns and allow time for adequate study of the impacts resulting from the SmartMeter technology.

SERVING THE COMMUNITY – WORKING FOR THE FUTURE “‘
Ordinance Imposing Temporary Moratorium on Installation of SmartMeters
Agenda: January 24, 200 i 2

PG&E, asserting that local governments do not have jurisdiction on the installation of the meters, has ignored the previous Santa Cruz County ordinance as well as similar ordinances adopted in other jurisdictions. PG&E believes that only the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has the authority to stop installation of the meters. Elected representatives, including the Board of Supervisors of Marin County, have acknowledged the limits of their ordinances to actually stop the installation of the meters. However, jurisdictions have adopted their ordinances with statements that such ordinances play an important role by informing the CPUC of significant community concerns.

Health Offcer Report
The Public Health Offcer’s report is provided as Attachment B. The report discusses the health risks associated with SmartMeters, the scientific reports and actions the public might take to mitigate potential harm.

PG&E Shutoff Update
At the December 13, 201 i, meeting, your Board questioned the PG&E representative about the utility company’s decision to shut off power to the homes of residents who removed their SmartMeters. Subsequent to that meeting, PG&E restored power to those residences with the intent of charging them based on past electrical bills.

Petition
At your January 10, 2012 meeting, your Board was presented with a petition to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding PG&E SmartMeter Opt-out Application, The petition provides the opportunity for local elected offcials to urge the Commission
to continue Petition A.II-03-0 14 for further public hearings. The petition is provided as
Attachment C. It is recommended that your Board direct the Chair to sign the petition on behalf of the Board and submit it to the PUC.
IT is THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD:
(1) Direct the Chair to send a letter to the PUC calling for independent testing and
monitoring of SmartMeters in place to determine duty cycles and frequency, especially
in the following circumstances:

. Where both gas and electric meters are located closely together
. Where there is a bank of SmartMeters such as on a multi-family residential
building or apartment building
. Where there is a collector meter on a home that serves the home, plus as many
as 5000 other residential units in the area
. Where a SmartMeter on a home acts as a relay for other local neighborhood
meters

Ordinance Imposing Temporary Moratorium on Installation of Smart Meters
(2) Direct the Chair to send a letter to the PUC and PG&E allowing any Santa Cruz
County resident to request removal of a previously installed SmartMeter and the
replacement with an analog meter
(3) Accept and file the report from the Public Health Officer
(4) Direct the Chair to sign the petition to the California Public Utilities Commission on
behalf of the Board urging the Commission to delay consideration of a preliminary
decision on PG&E’s SmartMeter application until further public hearing and input are
completed, and
(5) Adopt the attached ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on the installation of
SmartMeters within the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz Comity and direct the Clerk
of the Board to place the ordinance on the February 7, 2012 agenda for final consideration.

A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Report from Public Health Offcer
C. Petition to CPUC
cc: PG&E
California Public Utilities Commission

=====
============

Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTACRUZ IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF SMARTMETERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN, ALONG, ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND OVER THE PUBLIC STREETS AND OTHER PLACES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz find as follows:

WHEREAS, the County of Santa Cruz (the “County”), through its police powers granted by Article XI of the California Constitution, retains broad discretion to legislate for public purposes and for the general welfare, including but not limited to matters of public health, safety and consumer protection; and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Cruz has a franchise agreement with PG&E that has been in effect since 1955; and

WHEREAS, in addition, the County retains authority under Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution to grant franchises for public utilties, and pursuant to California Public Utilties Code section 6203, “may in such a franchise impose such other and additional terms and conditions. . ., whether governmental or contractual in character, as in the judgment of the legislative body are to the public interest;” and

WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code section 2902 reserves the County’s right to supervise and regulate public utilities in matters affecting the health, convenience and safety of the general public, “such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utilty, the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility, on, under, or above any public streets, and the speed of common carriers operating within the limits of the municipal corporation;” and

WHEREAS, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) is now installng SmartMeters in Central and Northern California and is installing these meters within the County of Santa Cruz; and

WHEREAS, concerns about the impact and accuracy of SmartMeters have been raised nationwide, leading the Maryland Public Service Commission to deny permission on June 21, 2010 for the deployment of SmartMeters in that state. The State of Hawaii Public Utility Commission also recently declined to adopt a smart grid system in that state. The CPUC currently has pending before it a petition from the City and County of San Francisco, and other municipalities, seeking to delay the implementation of SmartMeters until the questions about their accuracy can be evaluated; and

WHEREAS, major problems and deficiencies with SmartMeters in California have been brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz, including PG&E’s confirmation that SmartMeters have provided incorrect readings costing ratepayers untold thousands of dollars in overcharges and PG&E’s records outlined “risks” and “issues” including an ongoing inability to recover real-time data because of faulty hardware originating with PG&E vendors; and

WHEREAS, the ebb and flow of gas and electricity into homes discloses detailed information about private details of daily life. Energy usage data, measured moment by moment, allows the reconstruction of a household’s activities: when people wake up, when they come home, when they go on vacation, and even when they take a hot bath. SmartMeters represent a new form of technology that relays detailed hitherto confidential information reflecting the times and amounts of the use of electrical power without adequately protecting that data from being accessed by unauthorized persons or entities and as such pose an unreasonable intrusion of utility customers’ privacy rights and security interests.

Indeed, the fact that the CPUC has not established safeguards for privacy in its regulatory approvals may violate the principles set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kyllo v. United States (2001),533 U.S. 27; and

WHEREAS, significant health questions have been raised concerning the increased electromagnetic frequency radiation (EMF) emitted by the wireless technology in SmartMeters, which wil be in every house, apartment and business, thereby adding additional human-made EMF to our environment around the clock to the already existing EMF from utility poles, individual meters and telephone poles; and

WHEREAS, FCC safety standards do not exist for chronic long-term exposure to EMF or from multiple sources, and reported adverse health effects from electromagnetic pollution include sleep disorders, irritability, short term memory loss, headaches, anxiety, nausea, DNA breaks, abnormal cell growth, cancer, premature aging, etc. Because of untested technology, international scientists, environmental agencies, advocacy groups and doctors are calling for the use of caution in wireless technologies; and

WHEREAS, the primary justification given for the SmartMeters program is the assertion that it wil encourage customers to move some of their electricity usage from daytime to evening hours; however, PG&E has conducted no actual pilot projects to determine whether this assumption is in fact correct. Non- transmitting time-of-day meters are already available for customers who desire enhanced customer education is a viable non-technological alternative to encourage electricity use time shifting. Further, some engineers and energy
conservation experts believe that the SmartMeters program–in totality–could well
actually increase total electricity consumption and therefore the carbon footprint; and

WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors sent a letter to the CPUC on September 15, 2010 expressing concern about reports that SmartMeter technology was interfering with the proper functioning of common household devices and requesting a response from the CPUC; and

WHEREAS, there has been no response by the CPUC to the letter sent by the Board of Supervisors; and

WHEREAS, because the potential risks to the health, safety and welfare of County residents are so great, the Board of Supervisors wishes to adopt a moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters and related equipment within the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Cruz. The moratorium period will allow the Council on Science and Technology and legislative process referenced above to be completed and for additional information to be collected and analyzed regarding potential problems with SmartMeters; and

WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare because, without this urgency ordinance, SmartMeters or supporting equipment will be installed or constructed or modified in the County without PG&E’s complying with the CPUC process for consultation with the local jurisdiction, the County’s Code requirements, and subjecting residents of Santa Cruz County to the privacy, security, health, accuracy and consumer fraud risks of the unproven SmartMeter technology; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibilty that the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. This Ordinance does not authorize construction or installation of any facilities and, in fact, imposes greater restrictions on such construction and installation in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. This Ordinance is therefore exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and

WHEREAS, there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily study the potential impact identified above as well or better with a less burdensome or restrictive effect than the adoption of this interim urgency moratorium ordinance; and

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing it is in the best interest of public health, safety and welfare to allow adequate study of the impacts resulting from the SmartMeter technology; therefore it is appropriate to adopt a temporary moratorium that would remain in effect from the date of its adoption until December 31, 2012, unless your Board acts to repeal it prior to that date.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz as follows:
SECTION I
Moratorium. From and after the effective date of this Ordinance, no SmartMeter may be installed in or on any home, apartment, condominium or business of any type within the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Cruz, and no equipment related to SmartMeters may be installed in, on, under, or above any public street or public right of way within the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Cruz.

SECTION II
Violations of the Moratorium may be charged as infractions or misdemeanors as set forth in Chapter 1.12 of the Santa Cruz County Code. In addition, violations may be deemed public nuisances, with enforcement by injunction or any other remedy authorized by law.

SECTION III
This Board of Supervisors finds and determines that: (a) there is a current and immediate threat to the public peace, health, or safety; (b) the moratorium must be imposed in order to protect and preserve the public interest, health, safety, comfort and convenience and to preserve the public welfare; and (c) it is necessary to preserve the public health and safety of all residents or landowners adjacent to such uses as are affected by this interim ordinance as well as to protect all of the citizens of Santa Cruz County by preserving and improving the aesthetic and economic conditions of the County.

SECTION IV
If any provision of this interim ordinance is held to be unconstitutional, it is
the intent of the Board of Supervisors that such portions of such ordinance are
severable from the remainder and the remainder is given full force and effect.

SECTION V
This interim ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 1 5060( c) (2) – the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and Section 15060(c) (3) – the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly….

===========
Attachment B
[ For sources cited, please see PDF version. ]

Memorandum
Date: January 13, 2012
To: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
From: Poki Stewart Namkung, M.D., M.P.H., Health Officer
Subject: Health Risks Associated With SmartMeters

Overview
On December 13, 2011, Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors directed the Public
Health Officer to return on January 24, 2012, with an analysis of the research on the health
effects of SmartMeters.

Background
In order to analyze the potential health risks associated with SmartMeters, the following
questions should be asked:

1) What is the SmartMeter system and what is the potential radiation exposure from the system?
2) What scientific evidence exists about the potential health risks associated with SmartMeters?
3) Are there actions that the public might take to mitigate any potential harm from SmartMeters?

SmartMeters are a new type of electrical meter that will measure consumer energy usage
and send the information back to the utility by a wireless signal in the form of pulsed
frequencies within the 800 MHz to 2400MHz range, contained in the microwave portion of
the electromagnetic spectrum. SmartMeters are considered part of ‘smart grid’ technology
that includes: a) a mesh network or series of pole-mounted wireless antennas at the
neighborhood level to collect and transmit wireless information from all SmartMeters in that area back to the utility; b) collector meters, which are a special type of SmartMeter that
collects the radiofrequency or microwave radiation signals from many surrounding buildings (500-5000 homes or buildings) and sends the information back to the utility; and
c) proposed for the future, a power transmitter to measure the energy use of individual
appliances (e.g. washing machines, clothes dryers, dishwasher, etc) and send information
via wireless radio frequency signal back to the SmartMeter. The primary rationale for
SmartMeters and grid networks is to more accurately monitor and direct energy usage.
The public health issue of concern in regard to SmartMeters is the involuntary exposure of
individuals and households to electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation. EMFs are everywhere, coming from both natural and man-made sources.

The three broad classes of EMF are:
· extremely low frequency, ELF (from the sun or powerlines)
· radio frequency, RF (from communication devices, wireless devices, and SmartMeters)
· extremely high frequency, known as ionizing radiation (x-rays and gamma rays)

Much of this exposure is beyond our control and is a matter of personal choice; however,
public exposure to RF fields is growing exponentially due to the proliferation of cell phones, and wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) technology. To understand the relationship between EMF from SmartMeters and other sources, it is helpful to view the electromagnetic spectrum:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted limits for Maximum
Permissable Exposure (MPE) that are based on exposure guidelines published by the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). The limits vary with
the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation and are expressed in units of microwatts per
centimeter squared. A SmartMeter contains two antennas whose combined time-
averaged public safety limit of exposure is 655¡.W/cm2 (Sage, 2011). According to the
California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) Report (2011), within distances of
three to ten feet, SmartMeters would not exceed this limit.

However, CCST did not account for the frequency of transmissions, reflection factors, banks of SmartMeters firing simultaneously, and distances closer than three feet. There are numerous situations in which the distance between the SmartMeters and humans is less than three feet on an ongoing basis, e.g. a SmartMeter mounted on the external wall to a bedroom with the bed placed adjacent to that mounting next to the internal walL. That distance is estimated to be one foot. The CCST Report also states that SmartMeters will generally transmit data once every four hours, and once the grid is fully functional, may transmit “more frequently.” It has been aptly demonstrated by computer modeling and real measurement of existing meters that SmartMeters emit frequencies almost continuously, day and night, seven days a week. Furthermore, it is not possible to program them to not operate at 100% of a duty cycle (continuously) and therefore it should not be possible to state that SmartMeters do not exceed the time-averaged exposure limit. Additionally, exposure is additive and consumers may have already increased their exposures to radiofrequency radiation in the home through the voluntary use of wireless devices such as cell and cordless phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), routers for internet access, home security systems, wireless baby surveillance (baby monitors) and other emerging devices. It would be impossible to know how close a consumer might be to their limit, making safety a uncertainty with the installation of a mandatory SmartMeter.

This report will focus on the documented health risks of EMF in general, the relevance of
that data to SmartMeters exposure, the established guidelines for RF safety to the public
at large, and then provide recommendations to ameliorate the risk to the public’s health.

Evidence-based Health Risks of EMFs
There is no scientific literature on the health risks of SmartMeters in particular as they are
a new technology. However, there is a large body of research on the health risks of EMFs.
Much of the data is concentrated on cell phone usage and as SmartMeters occupy the
same energy spectrum as cell phones and depending on conditions, can exceed the whole
body radiation exposure of cell phones phones (see Attachment B1, Figure 4). In terms of
health risks, the causal factor under study is RF radiation whether it be from cell phones,
Wi-Fi routers, cordless phones, or SmartMeters. Therefore all available, peer-reviewed,
scientific research data can be extrapolated to apply to SmartMeters, taking into
consideration the magnitude and the intensity of the exposure.

Since the mid-1990’s the use of cellular and wireless devices has increased exponentially
exposing the public to massively increased levels of RF. There is however, debate
regarding the health risks posed to the public given these increased levels of radiation. It
must be noted that there is little basic science funding for this type of research and it is
largely funded by industry. An intriguing divide, noted by Genuis, 2011 is that most
research carried out by independent non-government or non-industry affiliated researchers suggests potentially serious effects from many non-ionizing radiation exposures; most research carried out by independent non-government or non-industry affiliated researchers suggests potentially serious effects from many non-ionizing radiation exposures research funded by industry and some governments seems to cast doubt on the potential for harm.

Elements of the controversy stem from inability to replicate findings consistently in
laboratory animal studies. However, analysis of many of the conflicting studies is not valid
as the methodology used is not comparable. Despite this controversy, evidence is
accumulating on the results of exposure to RF at non-thermal levels including increased
permeability of the blood-brain barrier in the head (Eberhardt, 2008), harmful effects on
sperm, double strand breaks in DNA which could lead to cancer genesis (Phillips, 2011),
stress gene activation indicating an exposure to a toxin (Blank, 2011), and alterations in
brain glucose metabolism (Volkow, 2011).

In terms of meta-analyzed epidemiological studies, all case-control epidemiological
studies covering ;:10 years of cell phone use have reported an increased risk of brain
tumors from the use of mobile phones (Hallberg, 2011). Other studies have pointed to an
increasing risk of acoustic neuroma, salivary gland tumors, and eye cancer after several
years of cell phone use and the tumors occur predominantly on the same side of the head
as the phone is used. The analysis of brain cancer statistics since the mid 20th century in
several countries reveals that brain tumor formation has a long latency time, an average of
over 30 years to develop from initial damage.(Hallberg, 2011). Therefore using studies
such as the Interphone Study which looked as shorter latency periods for the development
of specific brain cancers will result in inconclusive data.

Another potential health risk related to EMF exposure, whose legitimacy as a phenomen
remains contentious, is electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). In the 1950’s, various
centers in Eastern Europe began to describe and treat thousands of workers, generally
employed in jobs involving microwave transmission. The afflicted individuals often
presented with symptoms such as headaches, weakness, sleep disturbance, emotional
instability, dizziness, memory impairment, fatigue, and heart palpitations. Clinical research
to verify the physiological nature of this condition did not begin in earnest until the 1990’s
and found that the EMF involved was usually within the non-ionizing range of the
electromagnetic spectrum. In the early 2000’s, estimates of the occurrence of EHS began
to swell with studies estimating the prevalence of this condition to be about 1.5% of the
population of Sweden (Hilleert et ai’, 2002), 3.2% in California (Levallios et ai’, 2002), and
8% in Germany (infas Institut fur angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH, 2003).
In 2004, WHO declared EHS “a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health
effect while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or
electromagnetic fields (EMFs)… Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes
debilitating problem for the affected persons (Mild et ai’, 2004).”

Currently, research has demonstrated objective evidence to support the EHS diagnosis,
defining pathophysiological mechanisms including immune dysregulation in vitro, with
increased production of selected cytokines and disruption and dysregulation of
catecholamine physiology (Genuis, 2011).

Until recently, the diagnosis of EHS has not received much support from the medical
community due to lack of objective evidence. In an effort to determine the legitimacy of
EHS as a neurological disorder, however, a collection of scientists and physicians recently
conducted a double-blinded research study that concluded that “EMF hypersensitivity can
occur as a bona fide environmentally-inducible neurological syndrome (McCarty et ai’,
2011 ).

Safety Guidelines
The guidelines currently used by the FCC were adopted in 1996, are thermally based, and
are believed to protect against injury that may be caused by acute exposures that result in
tissue heating or electric shock. FCC guidelines have a much lower certainty of safety than
standards. Meeting the current FCC guidelines only assures that one should not have
heat damage from SmartMeter exposure. It says nothing about safety from the risk of
many chronic diseases that the public is most concerned about such as cancer,
miscarriage, birth defects, semen quality, autoimmune diseases, etc. Therefore, when it
comes to nonthermal effects of RF, FCC guidelines are irrelevant and cannot be used for
any claims of SmartMeter safety unless heat damage is involved (Li, 2011).
There are no current, relevant public safety standards for pulsed RF involving chronic
exposure of the public, nor of sensitive populations, nor of people with metal and medical
implants that can be affected both by localized heating and by electromagnetic
interference (EMI) for medical wireless implanted devices. Many other countries (9) have
significantly lower RF/MW exposure standards ranging from 0.001 to 50 ~W/cm2 as
compared with the US guideline of 200-1 000 ~W/cm2. Note that these recommended
levels are considerably lower that the approximately 600 ~W/cm2. (time-averaged) allowed
for the RFR from SmartMeters operating in the low 900 MHz band mandated by the FCC
based on only thermal consideration.

In summary, there is no scientific data to determine if there is a safe RF exposure level
regarding its non-thermal effects. The question for governmental agencies is that given
the uncertainty of safety, the evidence of existing and potential harm, should we err on the
side of safety and take the precautionary avoidance measures? The two unique features
of SmartMeter exposure are: 1) universal exposure thus far because of mandatory
installation ensuring that virtually every household is exposed; 2) involuntary exposure
whether one has a SmartMeter on their home or not due to the already ubiquitous
saturation of installation in Santa Cruz County. Governmental agencies for protecting
public health and safety should be much more vigilant towards involuntary environmental
exposures because governmental agencies are the only defense against such involuntary
exposure. Examples of actions that the public might take to limit exposure to
electromagnetic radiation can be found in Attachment B2.

[ For references, please see PDF version. ]

=======
To help keep EON’s work going, please check out all the support options on our Donation Page or you can also send a check made out to EON to EON, POB 1047, Bolinas, CA
Or…just: