– Webinar on the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons (VIDEO)

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvWQkP0DyG4

The recent virtual town hall hosted by the Transatlantic Nuclear Free Alliance (TANFA)ATOMIC TIES: Exploring the Link Between Nuclear Weapons & Nuclear Power—was a tremendous success.

Recorded on July 16, 2026, this discussion explores how governments, corporations, financial institutions, and military programs reinforce one another, and what citizens can do to challenge the expansion of the nuclear industry to advance a safer, renewable future.

Hosts
Mary Beth Brandon — Ecological Options Network
Richard Outram – Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance

Featured speakers:

  • Dr. Philip Johnstone – University of Sussex
  • Alfred Meyer – Physicians for Social Responsibility
  • Susi Snyder – International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
  • Dr. Gordon Edwards – Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR)

Topics include:

  • The connections between civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons programs
  • Military-industrial interests driving the “nuclear renaissance”
  • The financial institutions investing in the nuclear weapons industry
  • Small modular reactors (SMRs), military applications, and emerging technologies
  • Nuclear waste, plutonium, and proliferation risks
  • Strategies for divestment, public engagement, and grassroots action
  • The Focus: Examining how civilian nuclear infrastructure sustains the global weapons complex, featuring leading experts explaining why nuclear weapons must have commercial nuclear power to survive. Watch the Atomic Ties Recording
  • Mark Your Calendars: Look out for the next TANFA event on Thursday, November 19, focusing on the poisonous reality of reprocessing nuclear waste that nuclear industry proponents fail to admit.

– Comment deadline today, August 31, on NRC radiation protection standards; Coalition to Stop Radioactive Pollution comments

Comments filed by The Coalition to Stop Radioactive Pollution:

Beyond Nuclear
Committee to Bridge the Gap
Ecological Options Network
Fukushima Fallout Awareness Network
Generational Radiation Impact Project
HEAL Utah
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
Nuclear Energy Information Service
Nuclear Information Resource Service
Oregon Conservancy Foundation
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice
Samuel Lawrence Foundation
Texas Nuclear Watchdogs

Opening summary:

30 August 2026
Attn: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Submitted electronically via regulations.gov


Re: Docket NRC-2025-1140 – Reforming and Modernizing the Radiation Protection Framework
On behalf of the Coalition to Stop Radioactive Pollution, we respectfully submit these comments
regarding Docket NRC-2025-1140, Reforming and Modernizing the Radiation Protection
Framework.

As a Coalition, and as individual organizations comprising the Coalition, we are compelled to
place on the record our fundamental opposition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)
proposed rulemaking. If adopted, this rulemaking would constitute a monumental shift in the
current radiation protection guidelines. The NRC’s continued reliance on the assertion that the
proposed revisions will “maintain reasonable assurance of adequate protection” constitutes an
egregious mischaracterization of the scope and significance of the proposed rulemaking. This
formulation minimizes the profound implications of the proposed changes by suggesting that the
existing levels of protection will be preserved, while the rulemaking would in fact eliminate or
substantially alter the fundamental principles and precautionary mechanisms that have
historically governed radiation protection standards in the United States. The proposed rule would
dramatically increase the legal radiation exposures to workers and the public, as well as releases
to air, water, and sewage, through surreptitious means.

This proposed rule change comes at a time when scientific knowledge has made clear
that the health risks of ionizing radiation are more significant than previously understood. It also
comes at a moment when the enduring health, economic, social, and environmental
consequences of past radiation exposures are still being experienced by communities affected by
the nuclear industry. These are not merely historical or individual harms: entire communities
continue to bear the cumulative and intergenerational consequences of radiation exposure and
contamination. With this knowledge, weakening the nation’s radiation protection framework
would move in precisely the wrong direction. What we need is a move toward stronger, science-
based protections and toward greater awareness of the real risks and health consequences that
will be borne by everyone living in the US. The risks should be clear to those who must bear them,
and radiation regulations should be required to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires consultation and freely given prior and
informed consent. This proposed rulemaking is a shameful attempt by the NRC to legally,
unjustifiably, and unnecessarily increase exposure rates to workers and the general public. The
proposed rule aims to significantly weaken US radiation protection standards which are already
insufficient.

Should this rulemaking move forward, we believe the outcomes will be catastrophic. We
maintain that adoption of the proposed rule, whether in its entirety or through any of its individual
provisions, would undermine essential protections for public health and for safety of atomic
workers and the public from radiological risks in the United States. The NRC’s proposed revisions
are not supported by the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, nor do they reflect
the prevailing scientific understanding of the human health consequences of exposure to ionizing
radiation.

The proposed rulemaking lacks an adequate evidentiary and scientific basis and
represents a significant departure from the precautionary scientific evidence-based approach
that should govern the regulation of radioactive environmental pollution. This deficiency is
particularly evident in the NRC’s assertion that implementation of its proposed rule will result in
“increased public exposure to Ionizing Radiation…with potential stochastic health effects of
unknown magnitude… expected to be minimal” [see US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2026a,
27, Table 4, emphasis added]. Such a conclusion is deeply concerning because it fails to identify
and appears to minimize the potential consequences of increased exposure while simultaneously
failing to demonstrate an adequate scientific basis for determining that the associated risks are
sufficiently small to warrant weakening existing protections. Dropping the regulation of stochastic
impacts is further confirmation that the NRC is abdicating its authority, and therefore its
responsibility, to protect all those living and working in the US from radiological harm. When
stochastic health effects are “out of scope” of the regulations, the level of deregulation no longer
demonstrates compliance with NRC’s statutory obligations.

Furthermore, the full scale revision of one hundred percent of the NRC’s Code of Federal
Regulations in one 18-month period precludes meaningful public engagement. The affected
public, individuals, organizations and state and local governments are flooded with enormously
important revisions comprised of more content and background material than can be taken in,
analyzed, and commented on in this timeframe. Moreover, many of the provisions in the revised
rule NRC 2025-1400 violate the APA, NEPA, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act and its amendments.

We strongly encourage the Commission to give careful and full consideration to the
scientific evidence and analysis presented herein, which demonstrate the need for stronger, not
weaker, protections from the risks of ionizing radiation. The evidence makes clear that this is not
the time to diminish longstanding safeguards or relax the regulatory framework governing
radiological exposures. Rather, the NRC should strengthen its commitment to robust, evidence-
based protections for workers and the public.

We urge the NRC to abandon the proposed rulemaking in its entirety and work instead to
preserve and strengthen the protections necessary to safeguard public health and safety in
the United States. We recommend that the NRC bring civil nuclear regulations into line with
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) longstanding commitment to reducing
exposures to workers and the public and to regulate down to very low risk levels. Current
EPA protections provide seventy times more protection from radiation exposure to neighbors
living next door to Super Fund sites than does NRC to any member of the general public.
There is no justification for the NRC to allow additional harm.

— Act now to stop radioactive pollution; NRC comment deadline August 31

From Committee to Bridge the Gap
July 15

This summer, we need your help, and this page will show you how.

An executive order from May 2025 urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to abandon the well-established radiation science in favor of weakening radiation protection standards. The current U.S. radiation standards are already outdated and fail to offer adequate public health protection; now, the NRC’s proposed rule (NRC-2025-1140) plans to weaken those standards even further. NRC’s radiation protection standards are referenced and utilized widely, so any weakening of these standards would result in system-wide increases in radiation exposure.

Join the campaign at ProtectBetter.org

How can I help?

You can submit a public comment now! Click here and you will be taken to the page where you can submit your comment.

Comments are due 08/31/2026 at 11:59 pm EST.

How do I comment? What do I say?

Helpful suggestions at https://committeetobridgethegap.org/2026/act-now-help-stop-radioactive-pollution/

– – –

Effects of Weakening Radiation Protection Standards:

Here are the Facts:

  • Radioactive exposure causes cellular damage. Radioactive exposure can lead to cancer, heart disease, infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth defects, cardiovascular disease, and auto-immune diseases. (Beir VII)
  • Increasing the permitted radiation exposure standards allows the nuclear industry to generate more radioactive pollution —and more profit. This blatant attempt to make industry money by allowing more harmful radiation pollution exposure to the public is outrageous. (EO 14300)
  •  All radioactive exposure is harmful, exposure adds up over your lifetime and across generations. (Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative)
  • The current standards are based on an adult male body—not women, not children, not girls. Girls face higher lifetime cancer risks. Pregnancy exposures can affect three generations at once. (Disproportionate impact of radiation and radiation regulation)
  • President Trump signing an EO does not change the science or the risks to the public. The NRC should follow the science, not a political agenda.
  • NRC’s Proposed Rules eliminate the longstanding As Low As Reasonable Achievable standard, also known as ALARA. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43463)
  • NRC’s Proposed Rules allow workers to be exposed to 2 times the current yearly occupational limit, as long as the total exposure over 5 years is under 25 rem. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43472)
  • NRC’s Proposed Rules increase allowable effluent releases from nuclear facilities by 2.5 times automatically, but polluters are allowed to increase releases by 10 times with the only penalty being that the polluter must send monitoring reports to the NRC. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43471)
  • NRC’s Proposed Rules allow polluters to apply for alternative public dose limit that will be approved on a case-by-case basis, with no specified upper bound. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43473)

https://committeetobridgethegap.org/2026/act-now-help-stop-radioactive-pollution/

– NRC proposes changes to radiation protection standards; webinar August 19, including how to comment

Zoom link with registration https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/LIz4c3XHSle1soKZisRrFA 

 Protect Better Webinar 2

August 19 | 8-9:30 PM Eastern / 5-7:30 PM Pacific

  • The science
  • The health consequences
  • The legal implications
  • How YOU can submit a public comment

Zoom link with registration https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/LIz4c3XHSle1soKZisRrFA 

– – –

Public comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are due August 31.

What kind of world are we leaving our children?

As parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, and loved ones, we have a responsibility to protect those who cannot speak for themselves — and those who aren’t even here yet.

The NRC is proposing changes to radiation protection standards that could affect how radiation risks are evaluated and how well workers and communities are protected.

Our children and future generations deserve better protection, not weaker standards.

For our kids. For our grandchildren. For generations we will never meet.

Sponsored by the ProtectBetter campaign of the Stop Radiation Pollution Coalition.
Protectbetter.org

— Implications of Weakening Radiation Protection Standards – Dan Hirsch Presentation to NRC, July 2025

Three days before he died, Dan Hirsch gave this presentation to the NRC.

From Committee to Bridge the Gap

On July 16, 2025, Dan Hirsch, President of Committee to Bridge the Gap, gave a presentation to the NRC about the devastating consequences that would result from abandoning the linear no-threshold model of low-dose radiation exposure. Dan urged the NRC to tighten, not weaken, radiation protection standards.

Dan’s presentation was part of NRC’s public meeting to receive public input about President Trump’s Executive Order 14300 Section 5(b), which directs the NRC to “reconsider” its use of the linear no-threshold model of low-dose radiation exposure. The linear no-threshold model has long been the bedrock of radiation protection; without it, the public could be exposed to levels of radiation 100x to 1,000x higher than is allowed today.

Download the slides from Dan’s presentation by clicking here.

In 2021, Dan gave a presentation on a related topic – the long history of underestimating radiation risks – to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. Check out this 2021 presentation by clicking here.

https://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/2025/08/11/implications-of-weakening-radiation-protection-standards-dan-hirsch-presentation-to-nrc/

— Mothers for Peace demands PG&E test Diablo Canyon Unit 1 for embrittlement

Update from Mothers for Peace, May 25, 2025:
PG&E has now pulled the capsule, but it will take 12-18 months to test the capsule for embrittlement.

From Mothers for Peace
March 18, 2025

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Unit 1’s reactor vessel was built with faulty material, so it’s vulnerable to embrittlement. An embrittled reactor vessel can shatter like glass and cause a catastrophic meltdown. Despite this, PG&E has not tested for embrittlement for over 20 years.

PG&E has now committed to removing Capsule B from Unit 1 to test for embrittlement during the upcoming April outage. Previous attempts to remove this capsule have been unsuccessful.

On March 18, 2025, Mothers for Peace sent a letter to the CEO of PG&E, Patti Poppe, setting forth its expectation that Capsule B will finally be removed during this upcoming April outage and subsequently tested for embrittlement so we will learn if it’s safe to operate.

We are compelled to send this letter because of previous failures by PG&E to test the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant for embrittlement. We agree with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they state:

We share Petitioners’ concerns about the public health and safety implications of repeatedly postponing Capsule B’s withdrawal. It has been about two decades since PG&E withdrew and tested a surveillance capsule from the Unit 1 reactor vessel—and even longer since a surveillance capsule withdrawn from Unit 1 generated credible data. Although Unit 1’s operating license has now officially expired, the reactor continues to operate under the NRC’s “timely 10 renewal” rule because PG&E has submitted a license renewal application. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, 100 F.4th at 1056–58 (citing 10 C.F.R. § 2.109(b)). Capsule B remains a key source of data for the license renewal period. Under the current schedule, PG&E is slated to remove Capsule B in the spring of 2025 and use it to inform the company’s pending license renewal application for Unit 1. Any further delay in Capsule B’s withdrawal will mean that PG&E lacks a critical data source about the future integrity of the reactor vessel, without which a future license renewal may be subject to legal challenge.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1104 at *10 (9th Cir.) January 17, 2025

Background: Read about the Mothers for Peace brief filed in March 2024.

https://mothersforpeace.org/march-18-2025-mothers-for-peace-demands-that-pge-comply-with-its-commitment-to-test-unit-1-for-embrittlement/

— May 15, 2025: Top seismologist urges immediate shutdown of Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors citing “unacceptable risk” of an earthquake-triggered meltdown   

From Mothers for Peace

Award-Winning UCLA Earthquake Scientist Files Declaration to the NRC Requesting Shutdown of Diablo Canyon.

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA – MAY 15, 2025 – A leading earthquake expert has called for the immediate shutdown of California’s last operating nuclear power plant, warning that a proposed decision by the NRC dismissing seismic risks at Diablo Canyon is incomplete and illogical and fails to address significant evidence that seismic risks are too high to meet federal safety standards. 

In a formal declaration submitted today to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Petition Review Board (PRB),  Dr. Peter Bird, Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at UCLA, states that continued operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) presents “an unacceptable risk of a serious earthquake-caused accident,” and that the NRC is obligated to shut it down under its own safety guidelines.

Dr. Bird’s declaration criticized the NRC for refusing to open an enforcement proceeding sought a year ago by environmental organizations. Instead, the NRC parroted unsupported and illogical claims by PG&E that the reactors are safe to operate and ignored Dr. Bird’s strong evidence and analysis demonstrating that the risk of an earthquake-caused core damage accident at DCPP is high enough to warrant immediate shutdown under the NRC’s own guidance.  

 “I continue to hold the view that the risk of a serious earthquake-caused accident at DCPP is unacceptable, and that immediate shutdown is warranted under NRC’s existing guidelines,” wrote Dr. Bird, a globally recognized authority in earthquake modeling with nearly five decades of experience.

Submitted on behalf of petitioners San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP), Friends of the Earth (FoE) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Dr. Bird’s declaration criticized the NRC for failing to conduct a competent and independent review of “grave concerns regarding the severe risk of an earthquake-induced accident during continued operation of Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors.” 

Dr. Peter Bird now serves as Professor of Geophysics and Geology, Emeritus at UCLA with 49 years of experience in seismic activity and earthquake modeling. Holding a doctorate in Geophysics from MIT, Dr. Bird is the founding architect of the Global Earthquake Activity Model (2015). 

The Bird declaration to the NRC warns that PG&E’s modeling for seismic activity “assumes that a majority of large earthquakes affecting Diablo Canyon are strike-slip and disregards the significant contribution of thrust faulting earthquake sources under the Diablo Canyon site.”

The nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon, owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), were slated to close in 2024 and 2025 when its operating licenses were set to retire because the plants would eventually become “too expensive to operate” compared to available renewable energy resources. The “Joint Proposal” to shut Diablo Canyon, signed by environmental groups, unions, and PG&E was certified by the CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 2018. It did not address the unacceptably high risk for a seismic-induced reactor meltdown. However, the reactors’ licenses were extended after California Governor Gavin Newsom brokered a deal with PG&E, offering a $1.4 billion taxpayer-funded subsidy to keep the DCPP operational. 

Hallie Templeton, an attorney for FoE, said: “Allowing Diablo Canyon to operate without a competent and independent review of the seismic risks addressed in the petition puts millions of California residents in danger and risks a major radioactive disaster, akin to Fukushima, along the California coast. PG&E can’t say they haven’t been warned.”  

Diane Curran, legal counsel for SLOMFP, said: “We are very disappointed with the NRC’s proposed decision to allow DCPP to keep operating without a full review of the significant seismic risk to the reactors. It would be irrational and irresponsible for the NRC to permit PG&E to operate DCPP, especially with an aging and deteriorating Unit 1 reactor vessel, without addressing the concerns brought forward by one of the world’s top seismic experts. Listen to the science!”

Bernadette Del Chiaro, Senior Vice President, California at EWG, said: “The potential environmental and human health consequences of a major radioactive disaster along the California coast, similar to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi incident, are simply unacceptable. It is imperative that all possible precautions are taken to ensure the structural integrity and operational safety of a nuclear facility located in an area with ‘unacceptable risk of earthquakes. The risks highlighted in the petition warrant an unbiased and expert evaluation to determine the true extent of the potential dangers to Californians. To keep Diablo open without this crucial review would place countless lives in jeopardy.”

https://mothersforpeace.org/may-15-2025-top-seismologist-urges-immediate-shutdown-of-diablo-canyon-nuclear-reactor-citing-unacceptable-risk-of-an-earthquake-triggered-meltdown/

— Webinar on how to comment on plutonium pit production, Thursday May 22

From Nuclear Watch New Mexico
https://nukewatch.org/

Virtual Workshop
On the nationwide programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
on the expanded production of
plutonium “pit” bomb cores

Learn How to Make Effective Comments
at the Upcoming Public Hearings…
Speak your mind at an upcoming hearing on the government’s plan
to produce up to 120 new plutonium pits per year
for nuclear weapons for the next 50 years!

When: Thursday, May 22 at 6 – 7:30 EST / 3 – 4:30 PM PST
Zoom Link: https://tinyurl.com/3tta9vey

The workshop will feature:
Talking points and suggested scoping comments 
Explanation of procedural process
Question & answers with subject matter experts

Background: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Savannah River Site Watch and Tri-Valley CAREs successfully sued the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) over its failure to complete a required nationwide “programmatic environmental impact statement” (PEIS) for its most costly program ever, the expanded production of plutonium “pit” bomb cores. No future production is to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile. Instead, all pit production will be for new design nuclear weapons.

To meet its enforced legal obligation, the NNSA is holding two virtual “scoping” hearings:

Tuesday, May 27, 2025:
5:00-7:30 pm EST, 4:00-6:30 pm CST, 3:00-5:30 pm MST and 2:00-4:30 pm PST
Meeting Link: https://bit.ly/PuPEISMtg1

Dial in by Phone: (571) 429-4592 Phone ID: 808 821 801#

AND

Wednesday, May 28, 2025:
7:00 pm-9:30 pm EST, 6:00 pm-8:30 pm CST, 5:00 pm-7:30 pm MST, and 4:00 pm-6:30 pm PST
Meeting Link: https://bit.ly/PuPEISMtg2

Dial in by Phone: (571) 429-4592 Phone ID: 989 289 432#

Please comment and let’s PACK these hearings!

This is a unique opportunity to comment on core nuclear weapons issues NATIONWIDE!

Click here for a 60-second explainer video!

Sponsored by

— November 4, 2024: Watch Mothers for Peace Oral Argument in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

From Mothers for Peace

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, et al. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al. 

Our attorney, Diane Curran, will be arguing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Phoenix, AZ regarding the NRC’s denial of a hearing request for the operating license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for Unit 1 of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. 

WATCH IT

Oral arguments begin at 9am MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME.

View the schedule.

https://mothersforpeace.org/november-4-2024-observe-mothers-for-peace-oral-argument-in-the-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals/

For additional information
https://mothersforpeace.org/decommissioning/
Decommissioning or Extended Operation?

— Did PG&E secretly build and operate a breeder reactor on the California coast?

Vistra Energy is demolishing part of the former PG&E power plant at Moss Landing in Monterey County, California, and building a large lithium-ion battery storage facility there. According to very credible reports from people that worked for PG&E and GE, GE built a breeder nuclear reactor for PG&E at Moss Landing in the late 1960s. If true, that could pose significant radioactive contamination risks to demolition workers and the surrounding environment. Demolition must be immediately halted.

The public isn’t aware that a nuclear reactor of any type exists or existed at Moss Landing, but according to sources, GE nuclear power division in San Jose designed and built a breeder reactor for PG&E at Moss Landing in 1968, and it began operation in approximately 1969. It was a very expensive reactor, and it was not for power generation. It operated until the mid to late 1970s when it was shut down for unknown reasons. The control room, and possibly the reactor itself, were underneath the #6 or #7 535-foot smoke stacks. There was an access stairwell to the underground reactor control room, with a metal railing surround. After the reactor was shut down, the control room access was still visible.

A former worker at Moss Landing witnessed small planes periodically flying through the steam of the smoke stacks, presumably taking air samples. That person was told the smoke stack emissions were only steam, but any reactor emissions might have been vented out the tall stacks.

When a person who helped build the reactor later went to work for PG&E in the 1980s and inquired about the reactor and how it was functioning, PG&E employees told the person, “It doesn’t exist,” and “Shut the f*** up or you’re finding a new job”. That next weekend, PG&E filled in the access stairwell with concrete and cut off the metal railing at ground level.

One former employee went to Monterey County Planning Department to research if permits had been issued for the reactor and didn’t find any record of permits. In response to FOIA requests, the NRC also did not find any responsive records on the reactor, meaning they have no records or they have no records they will disclose to the public.

A breeder reactor is for the purpose of making plutonium for the military and for nuclear bombs. PG&E and GE operated a breeder reactor together at Vallecitos beginning in 1957. This type of reactor does not produce energy. One source suggested the Moss Landing reactor was to make off-the-books plutonium.

If the reactor existed, it was operated by PG&E at the same time as the company was operating the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant, called by Science Magazine “the dirtiest of the nation’s power reactors” [1]. It would have had the same safety problems, the same lack of AEC/NRC oversight, and potentially the same high radioactive emissions and contamination to the surrounding area. The area around the power plant and underground, including any control room and ground water, may be highly polluted with radioactive elements including hot particles and plutonium, considered by experts to be the deadliest of poisons, with no safe level of ingestion or inhalation. Contamination would pose hazards to local residents, to the waterways and ocean, to groundwater, to agricultural products, and to workers on the site.

State, federal, and local authorities have been notified of the situation including NRC, DOE, CDC ATSDR, California DTSC, CalEPA, CDPH, Monterey County EHIB, and the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, but to date, they have taken no known steps to investigate the situation or have refused to do so. Nuclear and environmental experts, civic groups, non-profit organizations, and other resources have also been informed about this situation,

Meanwhile, Vistra Energy continues demolishing equipment and buildings at the site.

Action steps needed now:

— Demolition work at Moss Landing by Vistra and other companies must be halted immediately due to the danger to workers and the surrounding environment from possible contaminated equipment and buried radioactive materials, pending an investigation.

— A thorough and public investigation must take place immediately into the complete history of PG&E’s uses and facilities at Moss Landing and the existence and extent of any radioactive contamination there.

— Removal and remediation of any and all contaminated soils and machinery, including excavation, must be undertaken by licensed professionals with full transparency. And any soil and debris already removed must be tracked and dump sites notified of its possible contamination.

— If radioactive gases were vented through the smoke stacks, their level of radioactive contamination must be assessed.

— The risk of fire and explosion of the lithium-ion batteries onsite adds another element of risk to any onsite radioactive contamination and potential dispersal offsite. This may necessitate the shut-down of the battery energy storage facilities until an investigation is completed.

[1] Reactor Emissions: AEC Guidelines Move Toward Critics’ Position, Science, June 18, 1971

For information on Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant:

My Humboldt Diary, by Bob Rowen
https://myhumboldtdiary.com/index.html

https://healfukushima.org/2023/01/25/former-humboldt-bay-nuclear-plant-technician-pgampes-safety-problems-and-retaliation/
Interview with Bob Rowen — video and transcript, January 26, 2015

https://healfukushima.org/2023/01/25/nuclear-accident-at-pgampes-humboldt-bay-nuclear-plant-whistleblower-presents-the-evidence/
Interview with Scott Rainsford — video and transcript, September 22, 2020

https://healfukushima.org/2023/02/15/pge-humboldt-nuclear-power-plant-accident-the-cover-up/
Second interview with Scott Rainsford – video and transcript, December 12, 2020

https://healfukushima.org/2023/01/25/humboldt-bay-problems-continue-pgampe-retaliates-against-decommissioning-expert/
Interview with Darrell Whitman, attorney and former Federal OSHA investigator, February 2015