Cover
story Americas aging nuclear reactors
By ARTHUR JONES
NCR Staff Washington
Theres a quiet war underway in
this city over the future of aging U.S. nuclear power plants -- and the nuclear
power industry is winning it.
Winning, say proponents like the Nuclear Energy Institute, the
industry lobby with a $25-million-a-year budget, because in an age fearful of
global warming from carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear energy is clean.
Winning, say nuclear power opponents and public interest groups,
because of what the public doesnt know, such as: Are aging
commercial nuclear reactors safe at 40 years, let alone 60?
Its a crucial question. The first half-dozen nuclear power
plants are lining up to have their 40-year licenses extended.
The nuclear industry, subjected to long and tedious public
examination when it wanted to build the original power plants, now gets
fast-track approval to extend the reactors life, while the publics
leverage has been diminished. Almost extinguished, critics contend.
The actual regulatory situation is worse than it might appear. The
nations commercial nuclear reactor watchdog agency, the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which, like Caesars wife, ought to be beyond
reproach, is more like a kept woman. The problem is built into the
agencys structure. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is funded not out of
taxpayer moneys, but from fees levied against the nuclear licensees it is
supposed to regulate.
Beyond the lack of general public scrutiny -- and what critics
describe as a pro-industry regulatory environment -- lies the other industry
motivation for keeping what some call nuclear dinosaurs alive. These reactors
are cash cows for a new breed of nuclear entrepreneurs. The relicensing of the
nations aging nuclear plants is a money-spinning offshoot of the proposed
but currently stalled-in-Congress deregulation of the U.S. electricity
industry.
Nothing better illustrates the latter point than the purchase last
year by Philadelphia-based entrepreneur AmerGen Inc. of the $4 billion Clinton,
Ill., nuclear power site for $20 million. At the time, Forbes Magazine noted
that AmerGen Inc. (a 50/50 joint venture between PECO, the former Philadelphia
Electric Co., and British Energy, the United Kingdoms largest nuclear
generating company) had effectively bought 27 years of capacity for $20
million -- a steal.
Project those multimillion dollars across the 40 nuclear sites
that the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industrys high-powered lobby, says
will seek re-licensing by 2015 and the nuclear power industry can be plucked
for billions -- all at the ratepayers expense.
There are more millions to be garnered from goldmining
the reactors. Thats the phrase the public interest groups use to describe
whats likely to happen to the decommissioning funds utilities set aside
to finally dismantle each reactor at the end of its working life.
Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service
explains. AmerGen, which bought [GPU Nuclear Corp.s] Oyster Creek
reactor [in Toms River, N.J.] basically in a garage sale atmosphere, paid
$10 million and intends to inherit over $400 million in decommissioning trust
funds. GPU didnt keep Oyster Creek because under deregulation,
utilities have to choose between deregulated electricity production or
regulated electricity transmission (delivery). GPU decided to stay with
transmission.
Clearly, said Gunter, the strategy [for the new
owners] is to operate the reactors as long as they can through secure power
contracts with a utility desperately looking to dump its liability. Then
AmerGen goldmines the decommissioning funds. Thats our concern.
Gunter means that if AmerGen decommissions the reactors for less
than the amount in the trust funds, it -- not the original ratepayers -- gets
to keep the leftover millions. Hes further concerned that AmerGen is a
limited liability company with only $110 million in their coffers.
Thats not enough for one serious clean-up, let alone resultant
health/safety liabilities. All this cuts into safety margins in an
already aging nuclear power industry.
Where are the publics representatives in the Senate and
House on all this? According to public interest groups lined up against the
nuclear power industry, Capitol Hill is in the nuclear industrys pocket.
In the run-up to the 1998 congressional campaign, according to a Public Citizen
study, House members received $15.5 million from political action committees,
plus $7.5 million in soft money.
The result is Inside-the-Beltway predictable: The nuclear industry
funds political re-election campaigns across the political spectrum, and the
U.S. Senate and House pressure the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be
more industry friendly.
Nuclear power industry critics argue that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has changed its oversight methods and lowered the bar on safety
standards while speeding up the re-licensing process in such a way that public
oversight involvement -- and consideration of safety issues -- get shorter
shrift than ever.
In fact, according to a January 2000 Government Accounting Office
report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has so altered its safety assessment
methods that theres a significant staff lobby inside the commission
itself protesting the new nuclear safety assessment standards.
Ralph Beedle, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer of
the pro-industry Nuclear Energy Institute, counters that the accounting office
report is based on skewed indicators. He said the report surveyed
the [commission] at large. If you went to inspectors involved in the
process management team, youd get different results.
Why doesnt the public know whats going on? Because
nuclear reactor relicensing is a Washington Beltway war bereft of war
correspondents. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service describes a
virtual media blackout as print and electronic media ignore the national
implications of nuclear reactor relicensing.
Further, nuclear power remains a battlefield with no middle
ground. Americans are either pro- or anti-nuclear power. When, for an earlier
article, NCR interviewed university-based physicists seeking an authority
respected by both sides of the nuclear power debate (NCR, Nov. 19, 1999), the
physicists comments ranged from Good luck, to The sides
are so far apart youre not going to find somebody respected by
both.
In the beginning
Originally there was just the Atomic Energy Commission, which
proposed, promoted and regulated the nations governmental and commercial
nuclear reactor activities.
By 1974, however, it was felt prudent to split the Atomic Energy
Commissions dual role of both promoting and overseeing the domestic
nuclear industry in an era when 2,000 U.S. reactors were envisioned. The Three
Mile Island nuclear accident (1979) scuttled those ambitious industry
plans.
The split of the Atomic Energy Commission, meanwhile, produced the
Department of Energy to promote and handle governmental nuclear development,
and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for commercial oversight.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was soon a child of the nuclear
industry. Because its budgetary source is not U.S. taxpayer monies but fees
levied against the industry it is supposed to regulate, it follows that the
smaller the commercial U.S. nuclear industry is, the lower the
commissions budget would be.
In a related development, Reagan era ideas and mid-1990s
congressional Republican activism brought about the decision to throw open the
state utility monopolies to competition. Under the existing system, an electric
utility appears before the state utility commission, presses for a particular
percentage increase in the rates charged to customers and the commission
decides yea or nay to the increase.
With deregulation, electricity producers will face no utility
commissions; transmission companies, those delivering the electricity, still
will. (Deregulation itself is a three-way fight among big corporations that
want cheap electricity, investor-owned utilities that like the cozy situation
that currently prevails, and private power generators that want access to the
electricity marketplace.)
By July, for example, Baltimore Gas & Electric, a subsidiary
of Constellation Energy Group, expects to deliver electricity, not generate it.
BG&E owns Calvert Cliffs, the first nuclear site to apply for relicensing.
Though Calvert Cliffs still had 13 years to run on its 40-year license, the
commission on March 22 approved the application for a 20-year extension,
lengthening the lifespan of the reactor to 60 years. By midsummer, BG&E
will have spun off Calvert Cliffs, plus 12 other coal, oil and hydroelectric
plants into a separate operating subsidiary of its parent company. In the
bargain basement sell-off atmosphere, nuclear reactors with licenses for a
further 20 years have a higher market value than those expiring at 40.
The significance of this new era of nuclear reactor garage
sales and the subsequent goldmining of the reactors comes
into sharp focus in light of the diminishing importance of nuclear reactors to
the overall U.S. energy picture, away from the time when they were seen as
vital to future U.S. energy needs. At the 1995 peak, U.S. nuclear reactors
generated 22 percent of U.S. electrical power from 109 reactors. Now its
less than 20 percent.
Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry lobby, points out that if
all 40 reactors expected to seek license renewal by 2015 were closed down
tomorrow, 16 million homes would be without electricity. This in a land of 109
million households, 14 million commercial customers and a half-million
industrial consumers.
Calvert Cliffs, Calvert Countys largest private employer,
provides about half of BG&Es electricity. If Calvert Cliffs were to
close, in an instant, with deregulation and todays national grid,
BG&E customers lights would click on with electric current from
anywhere else in the nation. BG&E, too, will deliver electricity to its
central Maryland customers from wherever it can buy it cheapest.
This is happening all across the United States, though down that
road there is also little agreement on whether nuclear power-generated
electricity will be competitive in the deregulated market. Nuclear
entrepreneurs say it will.
Dont weep for the utilities selling off their nuclear
reactors at mind-boggling losses.
Stranded costs
As the electricity industry deregulates and spins off its nuclear
problems, it has found stranded costs with which to hit the
ratepayers for billions more. (Oversimplified, stranded costs are the
difference between what a nuclear reactor cost and what its actually
worth; or, depending on who is using the term, between its book value and
market value.)
The Limerick, Pa., nuclear plant owned by PECO, the former
Philadelphia Electric Co., was supposed to cost $1 billion to build but
actually cost $7 billion. Its electricity consumers, who already had some of
the highest rates in the nation, are now paying PECO a total $5.4 billion extra
on their bills. For 11 years theyve an extra 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour
added to their bills -- to bail out investors whose nuclear power generation
hopes went awry.
In The Great Ratepayer Robbery: How Electric Utilities Are
Making Out Like Bandits at the Dawn of Deregulation, the Safe Energy
Communication Council contends that nuclear reactor bailouts are the largest
part of stranded costs. In 11 surveyed states, that means each
residential ratepayer would pay $950 and each commercial user $6,500 toward the
so-called stranded cost.
Clemson University professor Robert E. McCormick told NCR,
Theres no question stranded costs recovery is a way of
bailing out investors at the ratepayers expense. On bargain basement
reactors, adds economist McCormick, its my impression that the
utility companies suggested to the rate-making authorities that their power
plants were worth much less than theyre actually going to receive.
As low as prices were for the early nuclear reactor sales, they still brought
prices far higher than the utilities claimed they were going to
get, he said, and in a just world those higher prices should
be reflected in rebates to the ratepayers.
Most Americans over 35 are familiar with the Wests worst two
nuclear accidents, the Three Mile Island nuclear core meltdown, 10 miles from
Harrisburg, Pa., March 28, 1979, and, seven years later, on April 26, 1986, the
reactor explosion at a site 20 kilometers from the town of Chernobyl in north
central Ukraine.
GPUs Three Mile Islands Unit 2 accident occurred when
water was closed off to the reactor cooling supply. A series of human errors
and equipment failures led to a serious loss of coolant, the reactor core was
partially exposed and reacted with the surrounding superheated steam to produce
a build-up of radioactive gases, some of which leaked into the atmosphere.
Three Mile Islands Unit 1 was kept out of service until 1985; 52 percent
of Unit 2s core had melted down. More than 200 reactor projects in the
U.S. nuclear pipeline were canceled.
In 1983 Three Mile Islands licensees were indicted on 11
criminal counts of falsifying leak-rate test results. The following year the
GPU Nuclear Corp. pleaded guilty to one count and no contest to six others.
This year, a 13-year-long University of Pittsburgh study reported April 25 that
it found no link between the Three Mile Island radioactive leak and an increase
in cancer deaths among people living within a five-mile radius when compared to
those in adjoining counties.
The same day, April 25, the United Nations issued a new assessment
of the Chernobyl meltdown that posits worsening health consequences for the 7.1
million people affected by the radioactive release. (Also on April 25, the
death was reported of the second victim of the September 1999 uncontrolled
nuclear reaction at the JCO Co. uranium processing facility in Tokaimura,
Japan, 70 miles northeast of Tokyo.)
Chernobyls explosion followed a steam explosion that blew
off the protective covering at one of the sites four nuclear reactors.
The resultant radioactive cloud drifted across Northern Europe, and a vast
radioactive wasteland exists at the Chernobyl site. Thousands of the more than
100,000 Ukrainians evacuated from the region have since been diagnosed with
cancer; 7.1 million people are still considered at risk.
Four days after Chernobyl, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff
submitted to the five NRC commissioners a 37-page report, Impacts of
Budget Cuts on NRCs Ability to Assure Safety. On human error, the
report stated, there are no objective methods for assessing the
effectiveness of current or proposed regulations applicable to human
reliability or for measuring the performance of plant operating and maintenance
personnel. A broken fuel rod at Vermont Yankee went undetected for 14
months.
After Chernobyl
Since the Chernobyl accident, France, which is 77 percent reliant
on nuclear-generated electricity, has placed a moratorium on new reactors.
Former East Germany closed all its nuclear power plants; the federal German
government plans -- over strong industry objections -- to phase out its
remaining 19 reactors (representing 30 percent of the countrys electrical
power).
By contrast, in the United States, the nuclear energy industry
convinced Congress to push the regulatory commission to lead in the opposite
direction and keep the reactors going as long as possible.
There have been 23 U.S. reactor shutdowns (six permanent, others
temporary) in the past 15 years. They were voluntary shutdowns,
said Dave Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Wall Street
doesnt like it if reactors are ordered shut down. The exception was
the regulatory commissions temporary closing in the 1980s of the Peach
Bottom, Lancaster, Pa., reactor after safety-control operators were discovered
sleeping through their shifts.
Only China, Japan and possibly Iran are still in the nuclear
reactor-building business. CBS unloaded Westinghouse Nuclear in 1999 for $1.2
billion, less than the cost of a new reactor. In Europe, Germanys Siemens
and Frances Framatone nuclear operations are surviving on maintenance
work.
The nuclear reactor relicensing war is fought with polls, surveys
and fact-finding studies that each side creates to batter the other and soothe
or alarm the public.
Nuclear powers supporters dismiss safety concerns saying the
regulatory commission has everything under control. Beedle, Nuclear Energy
Institutes senior vice president, told NCR he doubts theres
going to be another Three Mile Island. The industrys safety and
operating performance has improved dramatically and consistently now for the
better part of a decade.
Less sanguine are groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists,
the Public Citizen Mass Energy Project, the Nuclear Information and Resource
Service and the Safe Energy Communication Council.
The whole truth of nuclear energy reality is evasive. When the
Nuclear Energy Institute surveyed college students in March, it asked:
Can you name any advantages of nuclear energy as a source of
electricity? Forty percent said they could, but there was no parallel
question regarding disadvantages -- such as the problem of disposing of
high-level nuclear waste.
Its called spent fuel, said the
lobbying groups Beedle. Of all the industries in the world,
were the only one since the beginning of time thats controlled all
of our byproducts. I can account for every bit of fuel weve ever used. We
havent lost any. Toxic in the sense its out there harming the
public -- thats the wrong view.
Is there no downside risk to nuclear power?
I dont see it, replied Beedle.
Therere some plusses and minuses with any technology. Dealing with
a system that results in radiation means weve got to be mindful of that.
The advantages are undeniable, that we can generate electricity without
polluting the atmosphere.
On April 4, the lobbying group spread across two pages of The
Washington Post an advertisement that said 2 of 3 Americans support
nuclear energy. Patty ODonnell tells why shes one of them. For
Patty, it all comes down to the environment: Nuclear energy is one of the
cleanest, safest sources of electricity. It keeps the lights on and the air
clean.
Nuclear power also keeps the taxes low in Vernon, Vt., where
ODonnell lives. NCR called the town hall, and the nearby Brattleboro
Reformer daily newspaper.
The Nuclear Energy Institute ad didnt say that Vernon is the
site of Vermont Yankee, a nuclear plant that is threatened with closure but
that also supports the local real estate tax base to such an extent that
Vernonites, with their first-class school system and their own police force for
a population of 3,100, pay $892.40 annual taxes on a $100,000 home. That same
home five miles north in Brattleboro is taxed at $2,650.
The ad described ODonnell as a mother of four, small
business owner, supports nuclear energy, but didnt mention that
advocate ODonnell is a Republican pro-nuclear power Vermont state
representative.
The energy institute claims that 73 percent of Americans want to
keep open the option to build more nuclear power plants. As always, opinions
vary according to who does the survey and how the questions are asked. As early
as 1992, a National Energy Coalition survey reported 65 percent of all
Americans opposed construction of new nuclear power plants. The Washington Post
advertisement stated nearly 90 percent of Americans believe the licenses
of safe nuclear plants should be extended for 20 years.
Whos for alternatives? A 1998 Sustainable Energy Coalition
survey dealing only with federal funding priorities found only 5.9 percent
favored nuclear power (Republican 9.1 percent; Democrats 3.8 percent;
independents, 6 percent), whereas 32.3 percent favored renewable energy --
solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydroelectric -- (Republicans, 31.6 percent;
Democrats, 29.7 percent; independents, 38 percent).
Whats safe for America?
The U.S. nuclear industry says Chernobyl cant happen
here because no U.S. reactors are that design. Thats a red herring,
contends James Riccio of the Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project.
The question is: Can you have an accident at a U.S. reactor thats
going to have releases comparable to Chernobyl? And the answer to that is
yes.
All U.S. reactor operational designs are 1960s vintage,
basically, said Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
He said that a number of U.S. reactors have been identified with inadequate
containment structures -- essentially the General Electric Mark I reactors, the
same reactors on the auction block in this divestment -- Pilgrim, in
Plymouth, Mass., Vermont Yankee, Oyster Creek, N.J.
All reactor designs have chinks in their armor, he
said.
These designs, identified by the NRC as early as 1985, have
a 90 percent chance of failure if challenged by a pressurization
accident, said Gunter. These are the same reactors that three
prominent General Electric engineers in very prestigious positions -- in 1976
public testimony before the U.S. Congress -- said they had simultaneously
resigned over.
Gunter continued, Some 28 reactors in this country have
substandard containment. And any time they cut corners theyre
shortchanging public health and safety. Oyster Creek was scheduled to close in
September 2000. AmGens intended purchase has extended its life by three
years -- its 40-year license is up in 2009.
If no licenses were renewed, U.S. nuclear power would die by 2030;
with renewals: 2050 -- unless there are renewals beyond that.
Calvert Cliffs, for example, had a bill of particulars leveled
against it by the National Whistleblower Center, which opposed the
re-licensing, and won a delay on appeal from a federal appeals court that said
the public was being given the bums rush by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
The National Whistleblower Center is a group that has worked with
whistle blowers in the nuclear industry (and other scientific whistle blowers,
including those in the FBI laboratories) for 15 years. Its
fortuitous, unique in the history of nuclear safety oversight, said
Center attorney Steve Kohn, having a body of experts available to the
citizenry. [That body] didnt exist when they were building these
plants.
Both in court and subsequently, the Whistleblower Center compiled
a list from the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions own public documents
detailing 150-plus operating violations or regulation noncompliances at the
facility since Calvert Cliffs applied for license renewal Jan. 12, 1998.
Those items included concern over the two reactors aging
electrical cables. You know how it is with the electrical systems in your
house, said Kohn. You buy a house and they sometimes say, Run
some new wires. Well, in a nuclear power plant, with its stresses,
multiply that deterioration by a thousand. Wiring [in nuclear facilities] can
be in places almost impossible to inspect -- and very, very costly to change.
Youre going to have to tear up all that concrete.
Calvert Cliffs aging electrical cables do worry the Nuclear
Regulatory Commissions inspection staff. An NRC internal document
described Calvert Cliffs electrical cable aging tests run by Sandia
National Laboratory under contract with the NRC.
In scientific jargon, the leaked report stated
after accelerated aging, some environmentally qualified cables either
failed or exhibited marginal insulation resistance during accident
simulation. In other words, while Sandia may have been holding Calvert
Cliffs cables to higher standards than regulatory commission tests called
for, the major conclusions were possible significant risks of electrical
component failure if a breakdown (a harsh environment) occurred.
The regulatory commission staff concluded that a more detailed risk assessment
should be completed. Calvert Cliffs was relicensed; the risk is still being
studied.
In the Calvert Cliffs application, Gunter said, Fifty years
of U.S. nuclear waste mismanagement and an additional 20 years of nuclear waste
generation was not even brought to the table.
The Web site for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry lobby,
claims that: Nuclear power plants are subject to a rigorous program of
NRC oversight, inspection, preventive and corrective maintenance, equipment
replacement and extensive equipment testing. These programs ensure that nuclear
plant equipment continues to meet safety standards, no matter how long the
plant has been operating.
The lobbys Beedle takes the industry argument further:
The focus for the license renewal process is to examine the plants
systems and structures from an aging point of view: Are you as an
operator maintaining your system, replacing and repairing?
With Calvert Cliffs approved, four energy companies are currently
standing in line seeking renewals: Entergy, Duke Power, Dominion Resources and
Commonwealth Edison.
Relicensed or not, if Calvert Cliffs did a Chernobyl, there goes
the federal government. Washington is within the Nuclear Regulatory
Commissions 50-mile emergency planning zone. So is Chesapeake
Bay, and much of Maryland on both sides of it.
Public involvement diluted
Wheres the public involvement? As early as 1991, lawyer
Diane Curran, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists and the New
England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, at a public hearing looking into
fast track relicensing, explained that the public may not
challenge either the sufficiency of [the current license regulations] or the
plants compliance with [those regulations].
Why has the publics involvement been diluted?
What happened, said the Whistleblowers Kohn,
is around 1985-90, nuclear power was dead. The movement for safe energy
essentially declared victory. It was evident no one would build a new plant,
and the existing 105 would all die out within 40 years. All concern was
dropped.
Well, the industry didnt drop its concerns,
continued Kohn. From that day forward they have been planning this whole
relicensing thing. It accomplishes two goals: One, it essentially creates an
entire new generation of nuclear power -- re-licensing is the equivalent of
building 11 new reactors -- and it alters the profitability equation.
Theyll have recouped their costs over 40 years from the ratepayers, [and
then] for the next 20 [years]: profitability. Without the public having any
serious input.
Said Public Citizens Riccio, Its not that the
publics asleep. The public has been removed from the process of license
renewal. At first, the criteria for getting a license renewed was to prove the
same things theyd proved when getting the original one. Then it was
proven the industry couldnt do that. The industry revolted. So NRC
changed the rule.
Adds Kohn, During the construction of the existing plants,
you had active citizen intervention. Citizens could raise scientific issues,
and this was unquestionably the most important safety net because the NRC
scientists, the utilities, had to publicly justify their science. Public
intervenors and citizen groups had the ability to put up scientists and
cross-examine the utility scientists.
As a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman said, the
commission is a creature of Congress. And that means it is subject
to lobbying influences.
It is a significant lobby.
The nuclear power industry poured money into congressional
elections throughout the 1980s and 90s. From 1985 to 92,
Congressional incumbents of both parties received $22 million from nuclear
political action committees. A 1992 Nuclear Information and Resource
Services/U.S. Public Interest Research Group report states that U.S. senators
who voted for the nuclear industrys position received an average of
$95,806 each from nuclear PACs, while representatives who voted for stripping
citizens of their rights to nuclear reactor post-construction safety
hearings, received $40,745 each.
As a consequence, The Senate Oversight Committee has cowed
the NRC, said Riccio. In fact, the NRC commissioners have decided the
industry is paying too much in fees and is reducing industry licensing costs by
10 percent over a five-year period, thereby making its own budget situation
worse. The regulatory commissions budget has dropped 25 percent since
1993. Its fiscal year 2000 request for just under $500 million, when adjusted
for inflation, is the lowest budget request in its history.
Many NRC employees themselves are not happy. The commission is a
revolving door with senior staff regularly moving into the nuclear industry as
employees and consultants. I deal every day with [industry] lawyers who
were NRC, said Kohn. Everyone in any NRC position who can goes to
private industry.
A General Accounting Office 2000 survey shows 26.2 percent of all
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff are considering leaving the agency within a
year; many because they dont like increased risks they see associated
with NRCs revised rules on safety inspections. Forty-three percent of
potentially departing NRC employees will leave because they are generally
dissatisfied with NRC, but, more important to public safety, 18
percent because they are dissatisfied with risk-informed, performance-based
changes going on in NRC.
Risk-informed, performance-based changes are the NRCs
substitute for previously established much tougher inspection procedures and
demands. (Oversimplified, computer probability programs have replaced people.
The new risk-informed methods computer probability
projections rely more on the power corporations monitoring than on the
more tedious and defensive monitoring that the NRC staff and corporations
performed under the previous system.)
Steve Kerekes of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry lobby,
supports the new system. He said, The objective of the new [NRC
risk-assessment] program is to focus on objective data that gives you a clear,
quantifiable sense of performance for all the plants. And while its not
real time, its mighty close to it.
New oversight process
Said the lobbys Beedle, I could envision us sticking
to the same old Underwood typewriters for years simply because we bought them
and they seemed to be working. Does that mean you shouldnt go to a word
processor? I dont think so.
The General Accounting Office reported that with respect to
the change to risk-informed regulation -- the new oversight process to assess
the performance of nuclear power plants -- only about one-fourth believe that
NRCs staff have bought into the process. Sixty percent of the
staff [surveyed] believe it will reduce plant safety margins.
Another issue for some regulatory commission employees is the NEI
lobbys pushy reach into NRCs internal affairs. Staff have
complained for years. A 1996 report to the Systems Safety and Analysis Division
director said, The current interface with the Nuclear Energy Institute
often does not allow for the objective and unbiased exchange of information on
a purely technical level. Licensee representatives, industry representatives
and NRC staff are sometimes frustrated by the NEI interface when trying to
resolve technical issues in a cooperative manner.
In March this year, the U.S. Inspector General rebuked the
regulatory commission for letting the NEI take a first look at its internal
policy-making documents and then lying to Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., about
it. Markey is the only consistently anti-nuclear power voice on Capitol Hill.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrongly claimed it had also made
the document available to the public.
A parallel concern of the declining regulatory commission budget
is the erosion of NRCs accident-prevention research abilities.
Immediately post-Chernobyl, in an April 1986 report to the commissioners,
Operations Executive Director Victor Stello Jr. described the Impact of
Budget Cuts on NRCs Ability to Assure Safety.
Looking to the nuclear power industry to pick up the research the
regulatory commission could no longer afford to undertake, Stello stated,
the effect of the erosion of research capabilities and the resultant
inabilities to provide necessary information to answer safety questions cannot
be underestimated for the future.
In research programs addressing severe accident
issues, the report stated, the most serious issues have been
identified, but the ability to solve them has been reduced. The NRC was
already reporting that in the final two years of a six-year program
evaluating [NRCs] regulatory approach to severe accidents in
nuclear power plants, it is becoming apparent that some of the uncertainties
may be so large, even with the knowledge gained from the four years of intense
focused research to date, that NRC may not be able to provide a satisfactory
reduction of these uncertainties with existing resources.
That internal anxiety was expressed at the regulatory commission
14 years ago, when the personnel numbers were at their peak and the budget was
on the eve of the first of its two precipitous declines.
Typical of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions lip service to
public oversight was a Dec. 6, 1999, NRC public hearing on Existing Aging
Management Programs for License Renewal. The public information session
in the regulatory commissions Rockville, Md., headquarters basement was
not an opportunity for the public to influence either license renewal or
regulations affecting license renewal. Of the 98 people present, only a handful
was not from industry or government agencies.
Its just P.R., said Public Citizens
Riccio. A show, said Whistleblowers Kohn.
Even so, attendee David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned
Scientists went through the process. Nuclear safety engineer Lochbaum used an
overhead projector to describe to those assembled how the regulatory commission
staff position on aging reactor management oversimplifies issues. NRC staff
appears to base its judgments on questionable assumptions, said Lochbaum. The
regulatory commission treats reactors as if they are all alike instead of each
being radically different from the next, he said.
The NRC staff approach, said Lochbaum, assumes that the
current licensing requirements are being met, and that all licensees will meet
all requirements and effectively implement all administrative programs in the
future. The 1996-99 data refutes these assumptions in a very big way.
Lochbaum has been through it all before. At an earlier 1999 meeting, he was
assured the questions he raised would be addressed in the final report.
However, Lochbaums questions werent mentioned in the final report.
He took the issue up with the regulatory commission and was told his questions
have been overlooked.
So, with the computer generated risk assessments and aging plants,
how safe down the road are the neighborhood reactors? In late March there was a
radioactive steam release from the Indian Point reactor in New York, 35 miles
from Manhattan. The issues surrounding the release -- fortunately -- are more
important than the radioactive consequences. The regulatory commission said the
released gases and liquid were 0.1 millirem and .0009 millirem respectively,
whereas the average person in the United States receives 300 millirem annually
from background radiation -- rocks, soil, outer space.
The point, however, is that a year earlier, in March 1999, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave Consolidated Edison a waiver on inspecting
its Indian Point steam generators. The waiver allowed ConEd to delay inspection
until some time in 2000. In March, before the inspection, tubing blew, and one
steam generator leaked.
Asked if the commission had made an incorrect decision in allowing
ConEd an extended inspection period, the regulatory commission told this
newspaper: NRC believed it had sufficient information from the licensee
to find that there was reasonable assurance of public health and
safety.
On reasonable assurances hangs Americas domestic
nuclear reactor safety.
Arthur Jones can be reached at
ajones@natcath.org
National Catholic Reporter, May 26,
2000
|