Nuclear safety sacrificied for corporate profits

Rosa Moussaoui writes in Truth Out that the crises unfolding in Japan's nuclear reactors demonstrates the destructive power of corporate capitalism and the neoliberal logic. 

Moussaoui argues that nuclear security is far too important to be left in the hands of private corporations. She is right.

Since 2003, the big Japanese private group aimed at "reduction of costs of maintenance" in order to render profits "secure".

Profit at Any Price. This could be the motto of Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the multinational that exploits the nuclear power plants at Fukushima. The largest producer of electricity in the world illustrates the excesses of an industrial sector in which neo-liberalism has unfurled to the last extremities of its destructive logic.

Poof. At the beginning of 2010, Tepco announced net earnings of 157.7 billion yen (1.19 billion euros) for the period from April to December 2009, as compared with a loss of 137.7 billion yen (1.04 billion euros) a year earlier. Miraculous recovery, for a multinational company whose annual turnover decreased, at the same time, by 14%. In order to restore profits, the officers of the company affirm, Tepco had to restrict its "current expenses", which dropped by 22%. Officially, this was due to a drop in the price of petroleum needed for the functioning of its thermal power plants. The explanation is a bit thin, for an industrial outfit that insisted, in a financial document in August 2003, on the necessity of "a rationalization of the totality of operations, including a reduction of the costs of maintenance" in order to render its profits "secure".

Has performance of maintenance, and thus the security of equipment, become a variable for adjustment? Tepco has not hesitated to do this in the past. Between September 2002 and April 2003, the multinational was constrained to shut down its 17 nuclear reactors. This was a consequence of revelations concerning the falsifications of some thirty inspection reports on three nuclear power plants in the group. It involved, among other aspects, the electro-nuclear giant’s act of disguising three incidents that had occurred in the nuclear facilities in Fukushima and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa.

This scandal implicating Tepco is not an isolated one. In March 2007, to cite but one example, the company Hokoriku Electric Power admitted having knowingly hidden a nuclear incident that occurred at the plant in Shikamachi eight years earlier, the 18 June 1999.

But who cares about security, when the race for profits takes command? With 28 million clients in Tokyo and in the region, Tepco announced triumphantly last 30 July that it wished to multiply by 5 its projections of profit for 2010-2011. Between April and December 2010, the multinational banked a net profit of 139.8 billion yen (1.27 billion euros). Surfing on the green wave, the group, already in the lead with its parks of wind turbines, planned to invest heavily in renewable energies. Ever so ready to threaten whole countries, the stock and bond rating company Standard and Poors granted Tepco an AA- on its long term debt, which is its fourth highest rating.

At the Heart of the Catastrophe, Tepco Remained Obsessed by Financial Considerations

Even at the heart of the current catastrophe in Fukushima, TEPCO remained obsessed by financial considerations. "It seems the the company waited until the last possible moment to drown the heart of the reactor by pumping sea water. In fact, if you drown the heart of the reactor, it becomes no longer usable," observes the Energy branch of the CGT [1]. Clearly, public ownership is not an all-risk insurance policy in these matters. But to what horrifying excesses can we be lead by the shameful acts of profit-taking. In 2005, in his essay From Tchernobyl to Tchernobyls [2], the winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, Georges Charpak put us on our guard: "The problem of security in the nuclear power plants is too crucial to be left only in the hands of financiers, those champions of stock market optimization". Cruelly premonitory.

The forgotten history of WA's sacrifice zones

The story of the Esperance lead pollution scandal has been consigned to the "dustbin" of Western Australian history. Hopefully, new research by the Conservation Council of WA might focus attention on the contamination of the town by a mining company and its state government partners.

Over 2 years (2005- 2007) Magellan Metals and the Esperance Port Authority allowed lethal lead dust to escape from storage facilities and contaminate the town of Esperance and surrounds. Over 9500 birds died of lead poisoning and hundreds of children suffered lead poisoning from elevated lead levels.

A Western Australian Parliamentary Inquiry found that the Esperance Port Authority and Magellan Metals (and 2 other government agencies) were guilty of "critical failings" in their handling of toxic material in allowing lead carbonate particles to escape during Port operation.

The Inquiry concluded that the deaths of 9500 native birds in December 2006 and March 2007 resulted from lead poisoning from Magellan Metals lead carbonate concentrate which had been handled by the Esperance Port Authority from April 2005 until March 2007. A quarter of the children under 5 years of age who were tested showed a blood lead level over 5 µg/dL. The Committee concluded that the exposure of the Esperance community to lead was a result of:

• the ongoing transport to, and inloading practices at, the Esperance Port which occurred almost every second day over some 23 months;
• the escape of lead dust during the usual out loading practices at the Esperance Port, which occurred on 22 occasions; and
• a number of key dust incidents occurring during ship-loading of the Magellan lead concentrate at the Esperance Port, which released significant lead pollution into the environment, and in the absence of any containment or clean up, caused on-going exposures to lead.”

The Report found that the Esperance community had been let down by the actions of the Esperance Port Authority, Magellan Metals and the WA Department of Environment (DEC).

The Esperance Port Authority was fined over half a million dollars after admitting responsibility for the lead poisoning. Magellan Metals escaped without any serious penalty after agreeing to a $9 million settlement to clean up the town. As part of the agreement the State Government agreed not to pursue any criminal or legal charges against the company.

The scandal is back in the news this week as a result of resarch by the Conservation Council of WA. The Council reports that even though the lead pollution problem scandal was supposedly fixed, local research shows that local insect eating birds have lead levels in their feathers about 8 times background lead levels. The birds are at threshold level for lead pollution in birds.

These levels raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the cleanup. A State Government report released earlier this year claimed that three years after the crises the poisonous lead dust still present in the town  remained a major threat to bird life and animal life but presented no "serious threat to human health"  

But why should we believe a report commissioned by a State Government agency that has utterly failed in its job to regulate mining companies and their Government partners and has failed time and time again protect the community. During the Esperance crises, Government agencies, including the Health Department, continually downplayed the seriousness of the problem and denied any serious risk to human health.

Like many other places in WA, Esperance is what US author Steve Lerner calls a "Sacrifice Zone"- communities forced to live with the harmful social and environmental impacts of poorly regulated mining and industrial activity. 

Martin Bruckner's remarkable book Under Corporate Skies tells the shocking story of another Western Australian "Sacrifice Zone"- this time the struggle between the community of Wagerup and the multinational mining corporation Alcoa and its ally over three decades- the WA Government. Brueckner tells a story also consigned to the dustbin of Western Australian history. His book describes the the same pattern of denial, protection of mining and industrial interests, collusion by State Government agencies and  dismissal and trivialization of community concerns that has been evident in the Esperance scandal.

These "sacrifice zones" exist all over WA, in towns and communities where mining and industrial activity are dominant.  These are places and people sacrificed on the alter of corporate profit and economic growth. 

The harms caused by poorly regulated mining and industrial activity- ill health and death, scarred land, polluted, air and water, despoiled environment and human landscape and a fraying social fabric- are trivialized, and denied, and if proven, they are simply dismissed as a cost of economic prosperity or considered not serious enough to warrant attention

The most important West Australian book published in 2010

The book Under Corporate Skies, A struggle between people, place and profits by Martin Brueckner and Dyann Ross is the story of a West Australian community torn apart and people's lives destroyed by the power of a multinational mining company protected and supported by the WA government. 

 In WA we are used to State Governments actively protecting and promoting the interests of large mining and resource companies, but the story of Alcoa, the small southwest town of Yarloop and the WA Government is deeply troubling. In this review to be published in Online Opinion Professor Gavin Mooney concludes that this important book shines the light on the shocking state of democracy in WA. 

A community versus a corporation … while government looks on

Gavin Mooney, Co-convenor WA Social Justice Network, Honorary Professor University of Sydney

‘It seems that whatever Alcoa says the government has to do, they’re too scared to disobey…. I think Alcoa’s got all the control. They tell the government what to do.’  Yarloop resident.

The above is a quote from this book* which tells the David and Goliath story of the struggle between the small West Australian community of Yarloop and the multinational corporation, Alcoa World Alumina, which has a refinery at Wagerup, just next to Yarloop to the south of Perth. The win by David in the original version is pretty much story book stuff. In this real world version from Brueckner and Ross, David has lost out big time. And the original story is nowhere as poisoned as this one – with poison occurring at two levels – as perceived by residents through the pollution in the air at Yarloop and through the bastardry of government (and other institutions such as local universities).

Brueckner and Ross tell the story of this ‘struggle between people, place and profits’ in a remarkably dispassionate way. But it is all the more savage in its telling as a result of that.

The authors take us through the problems faced by the local community as a result of the pollution – air, noise and visual – from its corporate neighbour. They tell how so many local residents have had their lives destroyed and not just their health as a result of both the presence and the behaviour of Alcoa. Perhaps inevitably, given how these things work, the local neighbour when it comes to decision making was not truly local at all as the real power in Alcoa is in a far off board room in the US. It seems that at least some of the local Alcoa management were human in responding to the problems being created for the local community. But they had little power to act.

Thus the authors argue (p 245): ‘As a US-based multinational corporation with executive managers able to influence decisions of governments across borders, Alcoa exercised placeless power while at the same time maintaining a ‘powerful place’ at Wagerup by occupying the territory and pursuing its commercial interests.

One aspect of all of this that comes over strongly is that there is a degree of cleverness, one might say deviousness, with corporates that can be quite breath taking. In this case Alcoa set up voluntarily a ‘Land Management Plan’ which created a buffer zone around Wagerup which involved some financial compensation/relocation for residents in that zone. Sounds good. But it did not include all Yarloop residents and split the town in terms not only of compensation but also emotionally. Deliberate on the part of Alcoa? Who knows but it certainly resulted in weakening the community position vis-a-vis Alcoa.  Then because Alcoa did this voluntarily ‘the government refrained from being involved when residents fell foul of the voluntary relocation as proposed by Alcoa’ (p173). Deliberate on the part of Alcoa? Welcomed by the government? Who knows but it certainly resulted in weakening the community vis-a-vis not just Alcoa but also the government.

Scary stuff and heartbreaking to read about the desperate and despairing fight of the Yarloop residents. 

The book exposes a number of intriguing issues. Just a couple. The question of what constitutes scientific evidence (especially in epidemiology) and how and by whom that is interpreted is discussed and science and epidemiology do not emerge well.

How corporations can act to protect themselves and infiltrate social institutions is fascinating and worrying as again the book exposes. The authors write of how (p227) Alcoa ‘secured a Professorial  Chair and gave its name to a new research centre  - Alcoa’s Centre for Strong Communities (sic - or sick?) - at Curtin University of Technology’ in Perth.  When the authors questioned the company about this initiative they were told ‘there was to be no relationship (with Yarloop) as the new Centre was not going to be addressing the specifics of the Wagerup issue.’

This particular point is close to my heart. I was a member of staff at Curtin at that time and was invited on to local radio to talk about the fact that this ‘Centre for strong communities’ was being funded by Alcoa who were at the same time perceived by the Yarloop community as weakening them! On the afternoon of the interview I was summonsed by a senior manager at the university and had my fingers rapped for daring to speak out as I had in the media.

The influence of the corporations on government and other of our key institutions like our universities needs to be exposed again and again and again. This book does an excellent if frightening job of doing that.

So where does this leave us? There is a risk in the wake of the “success” of the mining corporations in destroying the tax on super profits that we grow to accept that this sort of behaviour by corporations is all fine and that business interests and the national interests as implied at the weekend by Michael Chaney are often synonymous.

Acceptance of that places our democracy at risk.

We need the Brueckners and the Rosses of this country to tell this sort of story and we must be glad that they do. But telling the story aint enough. We must read their story! Please do that. Their tale is horrendous so be sure to have a stiff drink before you start – especially if, as I do, you live in WA. 

 

*Under Corporate Skies, A struggle between people, place and profits. Martin Brueckner and Dyann Ross.  Fremantle:  Fremantle Press, 2010 $26.95. 316pp.

Corporate hypocrisy and the sham of self regulation

 image of striking workers in the US, courtsey of Human Rights Watch & Vna Wert Times Bulletin

Thanks to Antony Loewenstein for making me aware of this report A Strange Case: Violations of Workers Freedom of Association in the United States by European Multinational Corporations by Human Rights Watch. 

As Antony points out don't expect to see any reporting of this story in the Australian media.

The report shows that  many European companies which claim to embrace workers rights under voluntary global standards actually undermine workers rights in the US. Those companies have actively carried out aggressive campaigns to deny workers their rights to organize and bargain.  

Among the violations documented in the report are practices of forcing workers into "captive audience" meetings to hear anti-union harangues while prohibiting pro-union voices, threatening dire consequences if workers form unions, threatening to permanently replace workers who exercise the right to strike, spying on employee organizers, and even firing workers who support organizing efforts at companies.

"The behavior of these companies casts serious doubt on the value of voluntary commitments to human rights," said Arvind Ganesan, director of the Business and Human Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. "Companies need to be held accountable, to their own stated commitments and to strong legal standards."