By Johanna R. Thibault, Esq.
May 18, 2012
As operationally safe as nuclear reactors might be (or as safe as nuclear regulators claim them to be), a looming opportunity exists for a catastrophic event to occur at a nuclear power plant. Not accounting for these unforeseen events can be dismal and dangerous. If the Fukushima disaster taught us anything, one take-away message should be that adequate public protections are not born from cozy relationships between regulators and the nuclear industry.
Our country responded to Three Mile Island seemingly recognizing the dangers related to not having a separate, and unbiased, regulatory overseer of nuclear power. The President divided the Atomic Energy Commission, then regulating safety as well as promoting nuclear power, into two agencies: Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Whether the NRC truly remains impartial is the looming question.
The Fukushima disaster further disrupted an already tumultuous relationship among the NRC commissioners. The NRC Chairman, Gregory Jaczko, responded to Fukushima by assigning a high-level task force to propose necessary upgrades to nuclear power facilities in the U.S. to make them more safe in the wake of Fukushima. After the task force presented its recommendations, Jaczko was met with much opposition from the four other commissioners when he moved to publicize and adopt the new safety measures. The NRC continues to drag its heals in strengthening the safety of nuclear power amidst lessons learned at Fukushima.
The Agency has faced much criticism over the years for its chumminess with the nuclear industry. Applications for new reactors were met with smiling faces and pictures were presented on the NRC's website with the NRC representatives graciously shaking the hands of the applicant as if it were a prize. When Jaczko became chairman three years ago, he was aware of this perception and he wanted it to change. Shouldn't we want it to change?
To the contrary, Jaczko's tenure with the NRC was frought with opposition, and allegations of abuse of his staff, badgering of the other commissioners, and unreasonable behavior. Things among the commissioners turned so ugly that each of the other four commissioners individually wrote letters to Congress requesting Jaczko's removal. It appears these commissioners have achieved their goal, as Chairman Jaczko announced his resignation yesterday.
We can only hope that the President replaces Jaczko with a Chairman that has similar goals for safety. The NRC commissioners have had a history of internal battles, that you could assume fell along party lines; this was rarely the case, however. Instead, the arguments appeared grounded in beliefs on how to address nuclear safety and the commissioners pro-nuclear attitudes swaying that view.
Believing that nuclear is generally safe is among common viewpoints with nuclear scientists and engineers. Quite frankly, nuclear is much safer now than it has ever been. It is not the science that is making nuclear unsafe. It is the nonchalance and general, and sometimes blinding, trust of the industry that can lead to dangerous consequences.
The recent shut down at San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in California provides a good example. Several years ago, when Edison decided to upgrade the tubing within the plant, the technical report and design specifications provided to the NRC made it appear routine and inconsequential. The questions were not asked and the hand was waived. When Edison had to shut the plant down in January of this year when a radiation leak was detected, it was discovered that the leak was due to design issues leading to excessive vibrations in the tubing. Instead of scrutinizing Edison's design effectively, the NRC bought off on Edison's approach that it "was no big deal."
This is, in fact, a very big deal, and it's one that we should be much more concerned about. What was thought to have initially been only one tube, is now 1,300 tubes, or 3% of the plant, that are damaged due to unexpected wear. The NRC has ordered the continued shut down of San Onofre until Edison has adopted a plan to fix the current problem. The proper request perhaps a little too late, NRC?
Whether or not the litany of allegations against Jaczko carry any truth, one thing has been made clear through the process that has resulted in his resignation: When one pushes back against the NRC's desire to be friend rather than regulator with the nuclear industry, the effort is met with strong opposition. Delays in approvals and mandatory upgrades can be costly, so it's understandable why the nuclear industry might not be happy with either. A happy industry might not always be a safe one. Is safety really worth the compromise?
May 18, 2012
As operationally safe as nuclear reactors might be (or as safe as nuclear regulators claim them to be), a looming opportunity exists for a catastrophic event to occur at a nuclear power plant. Not accounting for these unforeseen events can be dismal and dangerous. If the Fukushima disaster taught us anything, one take-away message should be that adequate public protections are not born from cozy relationships between regulators and the nuclear industry.
Our country responded to Three Mile Island seemingly recognizing the dangers related to not having a separate, and unbiased, regulatory overseer of nuclear power. The President divided the Atomic Energy Commission, then regulating safety as well as promoting nuclear power, into two agencies: Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Whether the NRC truly remains impartial is the looming question.
The Fukushima disaster further disrupted an already tumultuous relationship among the NRC commissioners. The NRC Chairman, Gregory Jaczko, responded to Fukushima by assigning a high-level task force to propose necessary upgrades to nuclear power facilities in the U.S. to make them more safe in the wake of Fukushima. After the task force presented its recommendations, Jaczko was met with much opposition from the four other commissioners when he moved to publicize and adopt the new safety measures. The NRC continues to drag its heals in strengthening the safety of nuclear power amidst lessons learned at Fukushima.
The Agency has faced much criticism over the years for its chumminess with the nuclear industry. Applications for new reactors were met with smiling faces and pictures were presented on the NRC's website with the NRC representatives graciously shaking the hands of the applicant as if it were a prize. When Jaczko became chairman three years ago, he was aware of this perception and he wanted it to change. Shouldn't we want it to change?
To the contrary, Jaczko's tenure with the NRC was frought with opposition, and allegations of abuse of his staff, badgering of the other commissioners, and unreasonable behavior. Things among the commissioners turned so ugly that each of the other four commissioners individually wrote letters to Congress requesting Jaczko's removal. It appears these commissioners have achieved their goal, as Chairman Jaczko announced his resignation yesterday.
We can only hope that the President replaces Jaczko with a Chairman that has similar goals for safety. The NRC commissioners have had a history of internal battles, that you could assume fell along party lines; this was rarely the case, however. Instead, the arguments appeared grounded in beliefs on how to address nuclear safety and the commissioners pro-nuclear attitudes swaying that view.
Believing that nuclear is generally safe is among common viewpoints with nuclear scientists and engineers. Quite frankly, nuclear is much safer now than it has ever been. It is not the science that is making nuclear unsafe. It is the nonchalance and general, and sometimes blinding, trust of the industry that can lead to dangerous consequences.
The recent shut down at San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in California provides a good example. Several years ago, when Edison decided to upgrade the tubing within the plant, the technical report and design specifications provided to the NRC made it appear routine and inconsequential. The questions were not asked and the hand was waived. When Edison had to shut the plant down in January of this year when a radiation leak was detected, it was discovered that the leak was due to design issues leading to excessive vibrations in the tubing. Instead of scrutinizing Edison's design effectively, the NRC bought off on Edison's approach that it "was no big deal."
This is, in fact, a very big deal, and it's one that we should be much more concerned about. What was thought to have initially been only one tube, is now 1,300 tubes, or 3% of the plant, that are damaged due to unexpected wear. The NRC has ordered the continued shut down of San Onofre until Edison has adopted a plan to fix the current problem. The proper request perhaps a little too late, NRC?
Whether or not the litany of allegations against Jaczko carry any truth, one thing has been made clear through the process that has resulted in his resignation: When one pushes back against the NRC's desire to be friend rather than regulator with the nuclear industry, the effort is met with strong opposition. Delays in approvals and mandatory upgrades can be costly, so it's understandable why the nuclear industry might not be happy with either. A happy industry might not always be a safe one. Is safety really worth the compromise?
No comments:
Post a Comment