U.S. Nuclear Regulators Privately Doubted Power Plants Despite Expressing Public Confidence, Documents Show

BOSTON (By Scott Malone) – U.S. regulators privately have expressed doubts that some of the nation's nuclear power plants are prepared for a Fukushima-scale disaster, undercutting their public confidence since Japan's nuclear crisis began, documents released by an independent safety watchdog group show.

Internal Nuclear Regulatory Commission e-mails and memos obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists questioned the adequacy of the back-up plans to keep reactor cooling systems running if off-site power were lost for an extended period.

Those concerns seem to contrast with the confidence U.S. regulators and industry officials have publicly expressed after the world's worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl began to unfold on March 11, UCS officials said on Wednesday.

"While the NRC and the nuclear industry have been reassuring Americans that there is nothing to worry about -- that we can do a better job dealing with a nuclear disaster like the one that just happened in Japan -- it turns out that privately NRC senior analysts are not so sure," said Edwin Lyman, a UCS nuclear expert.

The e-mails in question are part of an NRC review of how the operators of nuclear plants in Delta, Pennsylvania, and Surry County, Virginia, would cope with a prolonged power outage that knocked cooling systems offline, as occurred at the Tokyo Electric Power Co-operated Fukushima plant.

In a July 28, 2010, e-mail, one NRC staffer said that contingency plans for Exelon Corp's Peach Bottom nuclear plant in Delta "have really not been reviewed to ensure that they will work to mitigate severe accidents."

Another document, undated, said backup plans included just having equipment on the plant grounds that could be useful "when used by knowledgeable operators if post-event conditions allow."

The document went on to note: "If little is known about these post-event conditions, then assuming success is speculative."

A nuclear industry lobbying group criticized the UCS' disclosures.

"UCS conveniently missed the point of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission study," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. He noted that the NRC's review concluded that the risk of plants releasing radiation after an accident was lower than the agency had previously assumed.

The Peach Bottom site uses a General Electric Co reactor with a similar design to four of the reactors at Fukushima.

Officials at the NRC and Exelon did not immediately respond to calls seeking a comment.

The UCS said it obtained the e-mails through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The Surry County nuclear power station is operated by Dominion Resources Inc.

(Reporting by Scott Malone, editing by Dave Zimmerman and Gerald E. McCormick)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[DrStrangelov]

01:45 AM on 05/04/2011

The UCS can't possibly be effective as an independent watchdog. They either short circuit observations, or gloss over more important ones. They do not have adequate manpower to accurately and effectively report on anything but LERs.

[stevecaudill]

11:43 AM on 04/28/2011

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is virtually owned by the utilities, one only has to check the post-NRC careers of several NRC commissioners who found high paying jobs representing the nuclear utilities before the NRC: Dale Klein, Richard Meserve, Jeff Merrifield, Nils Diaz, Peter Lyons... The NRC also relies on the nuclear industry and its lobbying group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, to help write regulations, per this link --> bit.ly/k9fQiA The NRC is timid confronting licensees when economic considerations conflict with safety decisions, as in the notorious Davis-Besse near-accident 9 years ago per this link --> bit.ly/k79IWn This problem is compounded by the NRC staff's reluctance to raise safety concerns they feel go against NRC management's authority per this link --> bit.ly/k5O6T4 Lastly, if one thinks it takes a double catastrophe like an earthquake and tsunami to cause a nuclear accident, this link details how a mere candle almost caused a disaster at the Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant --> www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html

[DrStrangelov]

09:13 AM on 05/04/2011

Who do you expect to fill positions at the NRC? People with liberal arts degrees? The NRC and I am not one of them, nor ever was, is a technical organization. Who are you going to staff a technical organization with? Technical people. Where do technical people come from? From school? You want "academics and policy wonks"? No. You want nuclear engineers as well. You think the UCS doesnt make hay that Lochbaum is a nuclear engineer? The NRC gets qualified people because they NEED to be technically competent.

The NRC is probably the most technically competent nuclear people in government.

The NRC has no patience for activism that is not productive. You cant just show up at their door with a sign and beads. You have to make the technical case. If you dont make the technical case with them, you lose.

So the next crop of intervenors beware, if you are not technically competent, if you just show up at the next hearing with nothing but emotion and faulty science, then you are going to get stomped. This isnt collusion. This is the way it is. Nuclear energy is very important in this country. It is so important, that people need to get it right.

Who is going to get it right? When addressing the adequacy of a technical argument, it will be the people doing the work.

You want to fight the NRC and the industry? You have to be technically competent.

[professor]

01:28 PM on 04/27/2011

Anybody who fights all things nuclear has to have a good head on his shoulders. I would tend to believe him. Because he has no trouble identifying the truth and isn't mystified by this false equivalency argument where pro-nuclear people might have a point. Pro-nuclear people do not have a point at all. Why would anyone ever give them a shread of credence? Why would anyone ever be broad-minded about these shills for killers?

[professor]

01:24 PM on 04/27/2011

Deal with the subsidies, tr===s. Deal with the subsidies. Justify the subsidies with your free market logic.

[DrStrangelov]

09:17 AM on 05/04/2011

Bill Gates is funding Terra Power. Google it. Im not giving you a link. Do your own research.

[professor]

01:19 PM on 04/27/2011

Nobody bribes regulators in the US. This is a known fact. Especially nuclear regulators. They are clean as the driven snow. Just because I said so. And the fact that they haven't had any "accidents" (even though they have, that's a liii, too) means they never will.

Good logic. Makes perfect sense. I feel as if I am transcending the earthly realm, I am so edified.

[DrStrangelov]

09:19 AM on 05/04/2011

Everything breaks. That is a fact. But because everything breaks doesnt mean we cant learn and fix it. Nuclear will evolve as all technologies evolve. Watch and see the next 20-30 years. You want more carbon like Germany? Yeah thats right, they are so twitchy about nuclear they would rather have dirty coal. They even hate wind. No wonder they lost 2 world wars last century.

Geez you are as edified as a twinkie.

[professor]

01:16 PM on 04/27/2011

There have been thousands and thousands of nuclear accidents in the US and around the world at almost every nuclear reactor there is. Just because it don't make the news, don't believe it ain't so. Say it ain't so, and a poster will just post a huge list of nuclear accidents and boy will you have egg on your face, tr---l

[DrStrangelov]

09:19 AM on 05/04/2011

bs flag went up. Watch out people, it speaks...

[professor]

01:15 PM on 04/27/2011

The UCS is the greatest organization in the world. The tr==-ls on this site are fleas.

Tr---s always say "The new ones are better" until the new ones aren't and then they say "the new new ones are better" until the new new ones aren't, and so on . . . kind of like the persistence of radiation over thousands of years. Which makes it better than coal. Because it persists for thousands of years. That's good, right?

[DrStrangelov]

04:24 PM on 04/28/2011

The UCS are nuclear energy hacks. End of story. They can't even run MCNP, let alone know what it is.

[DrStrangelov]

01:47 AM on 05/04/2011

The UCS does not have the manpower or expertise to effectively independently oversee the nuclear industry. Activistcash.com lists their resources as a paultry 11 million dollars. There is shoddy research and biased conclusions. The UCS exists to keep post-Vietnam activists busy doing what they do - nothing.

[brt 177]

03:01 PM on 04/21/2011

why does this story not surprise me.

[Angie Cordeiro]

09:19 AM on 04/10/2011

“They were not allowed to speak up,” Mr. Nakajima said. “Once you enter a nuclear power plant, everything’s a secret.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42516551/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times

[Onertwo19]

10:48 PM on 04/08/2011

No more nuclear. We need this instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ22_U8QhzQ

[vmf211]

11:31 PM on 04/09/2011

your kidding we need more nukes

[aligatorhardt]

07:35 PM on 04/08/2011

It is too bad that this paper will not show an honest account of the public discussion. Using hidden threads and then also not opening the hidden part when it is selected as well as censorship on political basis, makes this a poor excuse for public participation.

[tiredofwaiting]

11:27 PM on 04/07/2011

shut them down!

[aligatorhardt]

07:39 PM on 04/07/2011

The NRC continues to avoid responsibility for doing it's job to ensure a high degree of safety to the public. They only counter the evidence provided by the UCS as in conflict with their own biased decision on safety levels, not even disputing the evidence. They throw away the value of human life in order to maintain the false promise of cheap electricity. Inspections have found equipment in many locations was not maintained in working order. Backup systems that did not work, due to cost cutting. Meanwhile no nuclear power installation has every reduced costs to the customer. One disaster of the size in Japan is costing more than many years worth of electricity. The loss of life and health is hard to price, and cannot be replaced.

[vmf211]

11:32 PM on 04/09/2011

you have proof of this how by the way?

[Michael Mann]

12:31 AM on 04/10/2011

The NRC seems to be the most effective regulator if you look at the safety record of US nuclear power plants. No deaths or injuries over 30 years of operation, how does this compare to the explosive natural gas industry? The NRC's only objective is the safety of the public, you are obviously misinformed.

[aligatorhardt]

08:49 AM on 04/10/2011

The reports can be found here. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/nuclear-power-information.html  also  http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power_risk/safety/petition-for-longstanding.html  also  http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/ltr-to-nrc-on-leak-at-indian-point-u2.html  also http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/letter-to-nrc-on-groundwater.html

[aligatorhardt]

08:51 AM on 04/10/2011

Disregard all dashes at the end of lines.  Why are all text lines not ended with dashes, but only on lines where added dashes would corrupt a link address?

[sarapy]

04:38 PM on 04/07/2011

omg, ge bought off the regulators? naaa, the regulators were just, well let's say, "zealous" when presented with the overwhelming facts that nucular power is safer than riding a bike. yes, it's that simple america, you risk more harm when you ride your bike (inhaling fumes, wreckless drivers, your proper inattention, potholes, rabid dogs...) makes you kinda wish that they had built that ucular plant just across the street so you wouldn't have trees or flowers or lawns... just painted concrete and nucular waste. that's what's so great, your taxes are sooo low, thanks again to nucular. waste you ask? what waste? it's as safe as mothers milk.

[rockyrococoAZ]

01:14 AM on 04/08/2011

false analogy, comparing riding a bike to getting my electrons from a nuke generating station. When I ride a bike, I'm managing the risk. I'm not managing the risk at Palo Verde (or any other nuclear generating station). That's why we have the the NRC and, in Arizona, the Arizona Corporation Commission.

[jeanlucbastille]

12:17 AM on 04/14/2011

NRC is nothing but the whitewashing
arm of nuclear industry.

[fireofenergy]

01:54 PM on 04/07/2011

I don't want to be anti, but the worstcase is a deliberate act using foreign tech to cause distruptions of Biblical proportions by simple use of the fuel ponds here.
I had to write it in such a way not to raise concern here so that it will actually post.
Therefore we need star trek type shielding for each of the 104 reactors (and more importantly, their pools) or simple switch to the molten salt rector

[Sock De Jour]

02:15 PM on 04/07/2011

How about not creating them in the first place? Where are you going to put waste that isn't safe for hundreds of thousands of years?

What about terrorism? These plants aren't even secure. 60 minutes did an expose where they walked right up to heavy water pools.

[fireofenergy]

02:24 PM on 04/07/2011

search molten salt and thorium energy as they will better explain why its waste are only like 5% (or less). Better, because that only last 300 years until "safe as lead".
Conventional nuclear aka light water reactors only use 1% of the fuel (that's why they suck! and why there is soooo much problem concerning waste issues).
I believe a molten salt type, if targeted by alien forces, would not cause much damage as disspersion would make the stuff almost as safe as background levels... But I still don't know for sure (what I do no is that they inherently are MUCH safer)!

I am FAR more supportive of massive and CHEAP solar and wind and batteries and other storage.

[PoloniumMan]

09:45 PM on 04/07/2011

Although the fuel is highly radioactive, and not to understate the hazards associated with handling the stuff, but the volume of spent fuel sitting at US nuclear reactors is really quite small compared to the amount of energy produceed. Sometimes it helps to see a picture. Here's a shot of all the spent fuel from Connecticut Yankee, which operated for 26 years. The fuel bundles are dry and surrounded by 120 tons of metal and concrete.

http://www.connyankee.com/html/fuel_storage.html