McCain vs. Nuclear Safety

Last week during a rally in Iowa, John McCain mocked Barack Obama for expressing concern over the safety of nuclear energy. "It has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah..." he said to a cheering, partisan crowd. "I have news for Senator Obama, nuclear power is safe, we ought to do it now."

McCain's cavalier attitude toward nuclear safety, where he holds in contempt those who raise questions, is nothing new. In one of his earliest acts as a congressman, McCain tore into a nuclear whistleblower who had the temerity to stand up to the powerful energy industry.

It was 1983, McCain's first year in Congress, and the subcommittee upon which he sat, "Energy and the Environment," was holding hearings on the cleanup at Three Mile Island (TMI), site of the worst nuclear accident in US history. During a mystifying exchange with a whistleblower who'd spoken up about a potential safety problem -- one which experts warned could have resulted in the necessary evacuation of major east-coast metropolitan areas, McCain didn't ask one question about actual safety, according to a transcript of the hearing.

"His sole role was serving as a nuclear-industry hatchet-man to discredit the whistleblowers who were raising safety concerns," said a lawyer who was present during the hearings.

Against his employer's wishes, the whistleblower, Larry King, the project manager of the TMI cleanup, refused to rush a delicate and critical procedure before adequate safety tests had been conducted. Two others at the plant had concurred with King. And within days of their opposition, the corporation that runs TMI, General Public Utilities (GPU), and its contractor supervising the project, Bechtel, set about ruining their lives.

One whistleblower was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, another was harassed and had his house broken into, and a third, Larry King, was fired from his job.

The corporations' anger at the whistleblowers and subsequent retaliation, according to King, came from concerns over the flow of money to the project. As King said in his testimony during the hearing: "GPU Nuclear president...has publicly asked what motive the utility would have to take shortcuts...that could threaten public health and safety. I can suggest one possible motive," said King, "to maintain the flow of approximately $20 million in Department of Energy funds that were threatened due to scheduling delays."

The whistleblowers had identified several safety issues, but the focus of much of the hearing revolved around a powerful "polar crane" whose job was to lift the heavy reactor head so that problems within the reactor could be addressed. If it failed, and the head fell, the committee chairman, late Congressman Mo Udall, identified it as "one of the worst things that could have happened."

When King refused to sign off on the procedure in the absence of a load test for the crane, he was immediately suspended (later, he was fired), escorted to the front gate and barred from returning to the plant. GPU said they fired King because of a conflict of interest -- King owned an outside consulting company that also operated in the nuclear energy industry. The problem with GPU's claim was that King had been careful to ensure his consulting company didn't do business with GPU; and his supervisors at Bechtel had been aware of this "conflict" 18 months prior to his dismissal.

"It only became an issue when I blew the whistle," said King in a recent interview.

Under early questioning at the hearing, King made clear that he had come at the urging of the chairman of the committee to testify about safety; that he'd come on short notice, hadn't come with a lawyer and didn't think it appropriate to discuss the "conflict of interest" issue because it was under investigation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Nevertheless, McCain wanted to focus on nothing else.

"I see, so we can reveal openly here many of your allegations, but we cannot reveal in this hearing anything to do with the allegations of your conflict of interest...?" McCain asked rhetorically.

When King said that he'd be glad to discuss these issues but not without his lawyer present, McCain asked:

"Were you advised that you could bring a lawyer, like your friend did [McCain said in derisive reference to the other whistleblower present]?"

"I'm sorry this committee did not give you ample time to consult whether you needed a lawyer or not," McCain continued.

King responded: "We are here to discuss safety issues."

McCain replied: "I am sorry you have chosen not to address the subject of the reasons why you were fired from this company, and the reason why is because that directly affects the credibility of your testimony before this committee."

"I thought I was there to protect the public," King said recently.

But that clearly didn't seem to be McCain's intent.

"What was striking to me at the hearing was Congressman McCain's complete disregard for the consequences to the public from an alleged systematic illegality...[and] that we could have ended up having to evacuate Philadelphia, NYC and Washington DC," says Tom Devine, a lawyer for the Government Accountability Project, speaking in an independent capacity, who witnessed the hearing. There was no one else [on the Committee] who was so single minded and unbalanced."

Devine went on to say that at least other politicians showed respect for the concept of nuclear safety, "Congressman McCain had no interest in the point of the hearing. It was all about discrediting the whistleblowers. He was the attack dog." And while Devine, who has witnessed countless congressional hearings, says it's not unusual for politicians to play that role, "under those circumstances, it was horribly irresponsible."

"That's why it was déjà vu the way he dismissed Senator Obama's sensibility to safety issues," says Devine. "It just brought back the same attitude as 1983, almost contempt for the obstruction of getting the plant completed and online."

In the end, the position of whistleblowers was vindicated on all counts and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) fined GPU for a "serious" violation of NRC procedures in the cleanup, and "they had to start over from scratch," Devine says.

But no thanks to John McCain.

Senator McCain now says he wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants. He also says they're safe. "Ask some of our Navy veterans," he said during that rally in Iowa. "They'll tell you."

He's right. Navy veterans do know. Many retired naval officers occupy executive positions in the country's top energy corporations involved the nuclear field. They are there because of the Navy's historical experience with nuclear power as it's been used and developed for naval aircraft carriers and submarines. It's a good fit and some have argued they've brought much needed discipline to the industry -- and, in some instances, safety.

You can be pro-nuclear and concerned about safety issues and you can be pro-nuclear and insensitive to safety issues. John McCain seems to be in the latter camp. Can we be assured that he would hold his fellow Navy vets and others who produce nuclear energy to the appropriate and necessary safety standards? Given the experience of Larry King, it's a question worth asking.

Comments

[GonzoFactor]

More than 1/2 of the world's supply of Uranium comes from Canada, Australia, and Khazakhistan. More than a fourth comes from Canada alone. The US produces a bit under 5%. With the worldwide demand soaring, Uranium is becoming much more expensive quickly. The largest deposit of Uranium in the US was found in Virginia in the 1980's, but the state has effectively shut down exploration for exploitation of the deposits. Dig, baby, dig?

Thorium is the object of considerable study for uses in nuclear power. It is three times as abundant as uranium; the U.S. has sizable reserves. It is much more proliferation-proof than uranium reactors as it doesn't produce fissionable materials. Its wastes are not nearly as radioactive or long-lasting as uranium or plutonium wastes, nor is as much waste produced. However, the US DOE is committed to promoting uranium-based fuel cycles.

It's time to look more seriously into Thorium power. Uranium is just too expensive and too dangerous.

[GonzoFactor]

Nuclear energy is extremely expensive energy. It has a long lead & construction time, in great part because of the extensive safety features necessary. It is dependent on fuels that will no more be forever available than oil. Its waste products are difficult to store for long periods (even though many of the problems of short-term transportation and storage are being solved, but are still extremely expensive comparatively to other energy sources). Nuclear waste can still be dangerous for 25,000 years or more, and it's a problem that our use will pass on to countless future generations.

[BlueGreen55]

Another, usually unmentioned, factor with increasing nuclear power is water usage. Nuclear reactors require the most water per generatied megawatt of any power source. This will be their ultimate limiting factor. That is why Senator McCain's call for 45 more reactors in the U.S. will never happen. Reference is Scientific American Earth 3.0 published Fall 2008.

[JohnDrake6]

A few somewhat random thoughts about nuclear safety/energy:

1. Senator McCain touts the Navy's success with nuclear power, but does he realize that they have lost not one, but TWO nuclear subs since 1961 (Thresher and Scorpion)?

2. McCain wants to quickly build forty new reactors, but It takes about six months to forge the nuclear containment vessel required by the most commonly used designs and the two or three steel mills in the world capable of forging them are booked up with orders from other countries for at least the next few years.

3. In the aftermath of Chernobyl the head of the University of Texas' Nuclear Engineering department wrote a piece for the local paper assuring readers that, unlike the Soviets, American nuclear engineers knew what they were doing.

Meanwhile, his department had a reactor on campus and my office overlooked the roof of the room it was housed in. Even though there was enough concern about radiation that the warning "Do not go on roof without checking with reactor supervisor" was painted on my window, they never seemed to notice that the roof drains were clogged and rainwater would pool on the roof for months at a time.

[Proletarian101]

FYI, McCain's timeframe for these reactors is 12 to 20 years to implementation.

[jeffrey678]

The Nuclear-Industry is using a new tactic to silence whistle blowers. The H1b Visa Nuclear Engineer, and Reactor Operators. These NON-citizens can be thrown out of the country if they report safety violations that threaten the country . If you look at the DOL, FLCDdatacenter you will see that they are replacing their workforce with non-citizens. This was unheard of before the bush administration.

[Bladernr1001]

No form of energy is completely risk free. But nuclear has proven itself to be acceptable risk for generating electricity. There have been many advances in further reducing the risk of an accident.


Several other countries have gone almost totally nuclear without incident for more than 40 years now. France get more than 80% of there electric power from nuclear.

Even transporting the waste is not a significant risk issue now. I was watching one of those discovery channel shows talking about a container for transporting nuclear waste that can withstand a crash into a solid block wall on a truck going 70 miles an hour and also withstand a direct hit by a train locomotive going 60 miles an hours.

I think nuclear is an excellent fuel alternative because it has a very strong risk/benefit profile. It produces zero carbon emission, has a great safety track record in this country and many others and now can be safely transported. What is not to like here?

[jeffrey678]

GREAT LET"S BUILD ONE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD !!!

[Bladernr1001]

Actually, I already have not far from me. Last time I looked I was not glowing.

[rwt1138]

Using the experience of the Navy with nuclear power as a model for land based power generation is what doomed the industry in the first place. As Edward Teller predicted, in order to bring nuclear energy to the public, it would have to be "inherently safe". Instead, they adapted the designs used for nuclear vessels into land based plants. The problem with this is that there are a lot of advantage from a safety perspective that a ship at sea has over a physical, land based plant. One is that ships operate far from population centers. Another is that, in a critical emergency, they have an unlimited supply of emergency coolant in the form of seawater.
South Africa, Germany and China are all far along in the development of pebble bed reactor technology, which has the advantage of being "inherently safe". In one demonstration at a Chinese plant, the cooling rods were completely removed. The reactor shut itself down safely, as the design prevents the reaction from running beyond a certain point before the reaction fails. While there are other challenges presented by pebble bed reactors, they prove that "inherently safe" is a reasonable, attainable goal.
McCain's derision for safety or stability is just further evidence that he lacks the concern, vision, intellect or temperament to be president.

[cheapslut]

Vote Vote Vote Tomorrow is the day!!!

[cheapslut]

Hahaha, just kidding!


Seriously, do the research on the two-stage system, and make up your own minds. It's extremely new, so maybe you haven't seen it yet. But as the person behind the idea, I can assure you that it is sound and safe.

[cheapslut]

wANT TO TRY FOR TEN THOUSAND? i CAN MAKE SOME CALLS.

[cheapslut]

We could just plug all the wind turbines into the mouths of the Republican party. We'll be energy independent forever!

[cheapslut]

Using a two-stage design in the nuclear reactor system, we can save hundreds of billions of dollars in disposal, by implementing a secondary system that wiil use only the primary spent rods as fuel. With the proper safety precautions in place, we could triple the amount of reactor systems in this country, and totally eliminate the waste, create new jobs, lower the cost of energy, and strengthen our cross-country grid system to the point where black and brown outages become a thing of the past.

[cheapslut]

This is an easy question to answer. We simply build what are referred to as two-stage nuclear plants. The first stage is your basic reactor sysrem, fully safeguarded with all necessary protections in place. But the second stage is designed to run only on the spent rods, which will also produce power, but at a lower rate, but more importantly, eliminate the need for disposal of the rods. Without the disposal problem, there is greater incentive to build the plants. We just need someone to actually stay on top of the safety issues. America, you're so very welcome!

[MajorKong]

I wonder if McCain cares one way or another about nuclear safety.

He just knows that scoffing at it pisses off liberals. If there's one thing the GOP base loves more than anything else it's pissing off liberals.

[dadw5boys]

IF THE USA CAN HARNESS THE WIND POWER IN ONLY 3 STATES WE CAN POWER THE WHOLE

USA FOR 400 + YEARS. WE COULD STOP BURNING COAL, NATURAL GAS AND TRASH TO

PRODUCE ELECTRIC POWER . NO NUCLEAR MESS NEEDED.

JUST USING ALL WIND POWER WE CAN AND WE CAN DRIVE TYCO ELECTRIC POWERED CARS.

THIS WILL PROVIDE MILLIONS OF JOBS BUILDING A NEW POWER GRIDS WITH HIGHSPEED
RAILS.

[cheapslut]

Sure, after we build, what, three million turbines? Where do you get enough wind, tornado alley?
You will lose your infrastructure. The biggest impedement to nuclear energy is the debate over the spent rods,, which still have a degree of radioactivity.and the answer to this problem is relatively simple: What we need to do is to begin designing two-stage sysyems that will first work as normal plants, but then in the secondary stage, burn up all of the still radioactive spent rods as fuel. This eliminates the problem of disposal. As long as we can stay on top of the safety issues, we now will have a totally clean system. Nobody gets spent rods in their backyards, and we can still deploy clean technology, using water currents, which are more dependable, and less dangerous to the infrastructure.

[cheapslut]

Dream on