The resignation last week of the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is another demonstration of the bankrupt basis of the NRC. Gregory Jaczko repeatedly called for the NRC to apply "lessons learned" from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster in Japan. And, for that, the nuclear industry -- quite successfully -- went after him fiercely.
The New York Times, in an editorial over the weekend, said that President Obama's choice to replace Jaczko, Allison Macfarlane, "will need to be as independent and aggressive as Dr. Jaczko."
That misses the institutional point.
The NRC was created in 1974 when Congress abolished the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission after deciding that the AEC's dual missions of promoting and at the same time regulating nuclear power were deemed a conflict of interest. The AEC was replaced by the NRC, which was to regulate nuclear power, and a Department of Energy was later formed to advocate for it.
However, the same extreme pro-nuclear culture of the AEC continued on at the NRC. It has partnered with the DOE in promoting nuclear power.
Indeed, neither the AEC, in its more than 25 years, nor the NRC, in its nearly 30 years, ever denied an application for a construction or operating license for a nuclear power plant anywhere, anytime in the United States.
The NRC is a rubberstamp for the nuclear industry. "NRC stands for Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission," says Kevin Kamps of the organization Beyond Nuclear.
And it isn't that Jaczko opposed nuclear power. "Greg is not anti-nuclear, but he's pro-nuclear in a smart and considered way," says Christopher Paine, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Since the Fukushima accident began last March 11, Jaczko, who has a Ph.D. in physics, has called on the NRC to recognize and incorporate in its rules and actions, the gravity of that catastrophe. As he declared as his four fellow NRC members approved the construction of two nuclear plants in Georgia in February -- the first okay for new nuclear plants in the U.S. in years: "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima had never happened."
"Greg has led a Sisyphean fight against some of the nuclear industry's opponents of strong, lasting regulations, often serving as the lone vote," commented Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts after the Jaczko resignation.
The nuclear industry and promoters of nuclear power in government would have us believe that Fukushima means nothing. As the American Nuclear Society asserts on its website: "No public ill effects are expected from the Fukushima incident."
In reality, the consequences -- in Japan and all over the world -- are expected to be enormous. They'll be worse than the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster, says Dr. Alexey Yablokov, a biologist and lead scientist of the book published by the New York Academy of Science in 2009, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for the People and the Environment. It reported that now-available medical data shows that that 985,000 people died worldwide between 1986, the year of the Chernobyl accident, and 2004 from the radioactivity released.
"The Fukushima disaster will be worse than Chernobyl," agrees Dr. Janette Sherman, a toxicologist and the book's editor. That's because Fukushima involves, she notes, not one but six nuclear plants along with spent fuel pools, in a "far more populated" area than the Chernobyl plant, and the radioactive discharges from Fukushima have continued for months.
Importantly, a new report by a noted European science institute has determined that Chernobyl and Fukushima were not isolated occurrences. "Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 to 20 Years," was the headline of the article last week on the report in Science Daily.
"Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed," said Science Daily, about the report by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. Based on "the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred," they "calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years."
And impacts would be global -- like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Their computer analyses, said Science Daily, found for the leading radioactive poison discharged in a nuclear plant accident, Cesium-137, some 8 percent can be expected to fall within 50 kilometers of the accident site, 50 percent beyond 1,000 kilometers and 25 percent beyond 2,000 kilometers. "These results underscore that reactor accidents are likely to cause radioactive contamination well beyond national borders," said Science Daily.
Science Daily, like Jaczko, can't be decried as "anti-nuclear."
But for the nuclear industry and nuclear promoters within government, including the NRC, denial is the watchword.
At the NRC in recent months a move has begun to negate what has been its benchmark analysis on the impacts of nuclear plant accidents. "Calculation Reactor Accident Consequences 2," referred to as the CRAC-2 report. Issued in 1982, it projects the impacts from a meltdown with a breach of containment at every nuclear plant in the U.S.
It divides the consequences into "Peak Early Fatalities," "Peak Early Injuries," "Peak Cancer Deaths" and "Scaled Costs" for property damage -- and the numbers are chilling. For the Indian Point 3 nuclear plant 28 miles north of New York City, for instance, it projects "Peak Early Fatalities" at 50,000, "Peak Early Injuries" at 167,000, "Peak Cancer Deaths" at 14,000 and "Scaled Costs" at $314 billion (in 1980 dollars).
The NRC in January issued a report it seeks to have replace CRAC-2, "State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequences Analyses," or SOARCA. SOARCA finds, according to the NRC, that the "risks of public health consequences from severe accidents" at a nuclear plant "are very small." The "long-term risk" of a person dying from cancer from a nuclear plant accident is less than one-in-a billion. This is because "successful implementation of existing mitigation measures can prevent reactor core damage or delay or reduce offsite releases of radioactive material." Tell that to the people impacted by Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Meanwhile, the NRC has been busy extending the operating licenses of existing plants, although nuclear plants were never seen as running for more than 40 years because of radioactivity embrittling the metal parts and otherwise causing problems affecting safety. Nevertheless, the NRC has now extended the licenses of 73 of the 104 nuclear plants in the U.S. to 60 years. And next Thursday, June 7, at its headquarters, the NRC is holding a meeting with DOE and the industry's Electric Power Research Institute on extending licenses to 80 years. Consider the reliability of an 80-year-old car.
A "Petition for Rulemaking to Improve Emergency Planning Regulations" was brought to the NRC in February by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and 37 safe-energy and environmental groups. It declared that "the real-world experience of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters ... were more severe and affected a much larger geographical area than provided for in NRC regulations" and asked, among other things, for the NRC to expand its current 10-mile evacuation planning zone around nuclear plants. "Waiting to see how bad an emergency gets before expanding evacuation ... is not a plan of action, it is a recipe for disaster and an abdication of responsibility." The likely NRC response? No.
On that issue, the nuclear industry was extremely upset that Jaczko, after the Fukushima accident began, advised U.S. citizens within 50 miles of the exploding nuclear complex to evacuate. It sought to continue the myth that 10 miles were fine.
As for the proposed new chair of the NRC, Allison Macfarlane, if she seeks to push safety, as the New York Times thinks she can, she would be crucified -- just like Jaczko.
The solution? Abolish the Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission -- and shut down every nuclear power plant in the U.S. They provide just 20 percent of our electricity and this could be substituted for with electricity generated by safe, clean, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind -- without the loss of lives.
Jeff Biggers: Fukushima Tour de Force: New Book Chronicles Nuclear Devil's Tango
William Bradley: Nuclear's Once Bright and Shiny Future Blinks Out
You seem to have investigated the comment sections well enough.
If you had offered one new argument, I would at least have applauded your effort.
Alas. The same tired harangue. The same debunked quackery.
And taken on the whole, the same comment section.
An endless loop.
Jack Spencer
May 28, 2012 at 1:13 pm
There’s More to the Story on Obama’s Pick for America’s Top Nuclear Regulator
Being a good regulator should have nothing to do with one’s previously held policy or political positions. This is where Chairman Jaczko went wrong. Everyone knew coming in that he was anti-Yucca, and many believed that he was anti-nuclear. Those positions, in and of themselves, should not have impacted his work as the nation’s lead nuclear regulator. His job should have been to carry out the mission of the NRC, which essentially is to ensure that all of the nuclear activities that fall under NRC jurisdiction are carried out safely. The problem came when he apparently allowed his previously held positions get in the way of that duty. This was most apparent in the Yucca debacle. It may have surfaced more generally as well.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/28/theres-more-to-the-story-on-obamas-pick-for-americas-top-nuclear-regulator/
http://enenews.com/japanese-professor-wh...
I am embarrassed as a Japanese citizen to list some of the most glaring shenanigans that the government and the power company have been acting out in public over the past year:
We already produce as much electricity with renewable power, and passed nuclear in 2010 for electricity. At least 5 states now get 20% or more of their electricity from wind power. Wind Could Provide 25% or More Electricity for Most States | john-farrell-ilsr
We have just begun to install significant numbers of wind turbines, and solar power. Colorado has achieved 30% renewable electricity ahead of schedule, and is finding prices stable or falling. There is a large amount of wind unused due to lack of grid updates. 25 TWh of Wind Power Idled in 2010 in US – Grid Storage Needed - CleanTechnica
We should not spend our money building new nuclear power plants. When the mining, processing, transportation and disposal of nuclear fuel is considered, and the decommissioning of reactors, the carbon emissions with nuclear power are almost as bad as if we had left out the nuclear and just burned the fossil fuels for electricity production. There is no financial advantage for customers of nuclear power.
Power bills skyrocket with nuclear power
only bidder for first nuclear plant offers a price of 21 cents per kilowatt-hour
Source http://205.254.135.7/electricity/data.cfm#generation (this EIA link may be rejected by HuffPo; in which case google "EIA electricity")
Your point about additional storage indicates a hidden cost of wind (and solar to a slightly lower degree). The storage is not free; the grid upgrades required for coping with transmitting loads in various directions are not free either. Your cost comparisons have to take these into account to make a level comparison with your wide-ranging cost inclusions for nuclear.
Likewise full lifecycle analysis shows nuclear as similar or lower carbon emission than wind, and both significantly lower than solar.
Storage is not free, but it, like solar is growing cheaper quickly.
We must upgrade the grid irrespective of the power sources we choose. Thus it should not be part of any comparison
By the way, We could replace nuclear with higher efficiency strategies alone
The first of a kind AP-1000 nuke complex being built at VC Summer in South Carolina will provide power at 4 cents a kwh if built by public power. .Four AP-1000's built by American engineers under the onerous watch of American regulators are on time on budget and 90% complete for half the cost of US units in China.
These are real numbers, Cheapest power there is - Google them.
Or the evidence to the contrary.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/a-higher-price-tag-for-a-nuclear-project/
Cost overruns for Vogtle 3 and 4 currently stand at around $900 million.
"In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Albert Einstein loved me!"
Without loss of lives? That's a bit of a stretch. The installation an maintenance of tens of thousands of tall wind turbines is bound to result in more than a few people falling to their death. Then there's the installation and maintenance of tens of millions of rooftop solar systems that also pose a falling hazard. The collections systems for solar and wind will have to be so large that the death toll will certainly not be zero and could be in the thousands. Of course we all know how Karl is, to him an instant death from falling off your roof to wash the solar panels isn't nearly as bad as getting cancer 40 to 50 years after a radiation exposure.
It seems that you live in a fantasy world in which claims don't have to be supported by science.
Pathetic.
And it is clear, from subsequent events, that the smart money says that the White House gave Jaczko a good shove out of the NRC door. The rapid announcement of the chosen successor is proof enough of that. I await the Inspector General's report on his management behavior style at the NRC with interest.
The tracker also shows accidents, and problems, tritium leaks at many reactors, groundwater contamination, and more history of nuclear power.
NRC Needs Nuclear Power Regulators, Not Promoters
Widespread corruption at the IAEA
Regulator Approves Southern’s Reactors as Chairman Dissents - Businessweek
The new Georgia reactors will not have the safety designs recommended by the task force on nuclear safety. The NRC approves the license, in order to save money for the owners.
Regulatory Meltdown – Four NRC Commissioners Undermine Safety | San Onofre Safety
The NRC has been implementing appropriate updates based on Fukushima experience. Implying that there is no action or that Jaczko was being blocked is a severe case of selective attention. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-info.html
The actual public impact of Fukushima radiation is zero. That's not me saying that; it's UNSCEAR, which is the top international body for that assessment. Please watch the video to understand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emeWOGLCi9w
What are the Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Meltdown? Japanese Press Assessments 福島原発炉心溶融のもたらす結果は？−−日本の諸新聞記事による評価
Nuclear Plants and Disasters: NRC Inspection Results - ProPublica
For Communities Living with Uranium Mining Contamination, Court Decision is “Slap in the Face” « Clearly New Mexico
The only technology that requires an emergency evacuation plan « Energy Vox
So what, it costs millions to submit an application for construction, you don't invest that kind of money unless your extremely sure you've covered all your bases, the requirements are not secret, The application takes years to be approved and people who are spending that kind of money change their plans to meet the additional requirements which are suggested during the review process. This anti-nuclear talking point is pure fluff. The process is long and arduous as well as costly, it is the "gold standard" in the world for safety. Learn about the licensing process here
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html
Florida pays for risky nuclear costs
Jones River Watershed Association claims Pilgrim power plant endangers Cape Cod Bay life - Kingston, MA - Wicked Local Kingston
Trittium leak at Sequoyah nuclear
New York could make up for all of Indian Point’s actual output
San Onofre: One Leaks, the Other Doesn't… Yet | MyFDL
Who the Hell is Regulating Who? The NRC's Abdication of Responsibility
Fukushima is now one of two Ticking Time Bombs, either of which can end human life in the Northern hemisphere and possible on the entire earth.
See www.aesopinstitute.org for why and how.
Both might be stopped but at great cost. An estimated $500 Billion to secure the fuel ponds at Fukushima. And perhaps about the same to secure all nuclear plants worldwide against the threat of a solar storm causing numerous meltdowns as the result of worldwide long-term grid failures.
The massive spending necessary to fight World War II ended the Great Depression.
Ironically, what is needed to insure human survival can likely end the one we are experiencing right now - which many feel will get much worse.
As in war, damn the cost - full speed ahead! If we are wise, emerging cost-competitive, decentralized, renewable power will begin to rapidly replace fossil and nuclear fuel at the same time.
All this will reboot the world economy and generate millions of jobs.