The Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant is seen in the early morning hours March 28, 2011 in Middletown, Pennsylvania. (Photo: Jeff Fusco/Getty Images)
Mar 15, 2019
Independent watchdogs are raising alarm about the nuclear power industry's ongoing efforts to convince federal regulators to scale back safety inspections and limit what "lower-level" issues are reported to the public.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)--an agency dominated by President Donald Trump's appointees--is currently reviewing its enforcement policies and is set to put forth recommendations for updating the nationwide rules in June. As part of that process, it sought input from plant operators and industry groups.
In September, one of those groups, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), outlined the industry's wish list in a letter (pdf). Requests include shifting to more "self-assessments," cutting back on public disclosures for problems at plants, and reducing the "burden of radiation-protection and emergency-preparedness inspections."
As The Associated Press reported:
The Trump NRC appointees and industry representatives say changes in oversight are warranted to reflect the industry's overall improved safety records and its financial difficulties, as the operating costs of the country's aging nuclear plants increase and affordable natural gas and solar and wind power gain in the energy market.
But the prospect of the Trump administration's regulation-cutting mission reaching the NRC alarms some independent industry watchdogs, who say the words "nuclear safety" and "deregulation" don't go together.
"For an industry that is increasingly under financial decline," Paul Gunter of the anti-nuclear group Beyond Nuclear told AP, "to take regulatory authority away from the NRC puts us on a collision course... with a nuclear accident."
Geoffrey Fettus, a senior attorney for nuclear issues at the Natural Resources Defense Council, suggested the potential consequences of rolling back nuclear regulations are arguably far greater than the Trump administration's efforts to relax other rules, such as the federal government's Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).
"The deregulatory agenda at SEC is a significant concern as well, but it's not a nuclear power plant," Fettus said.
Worries over how industry lobbying will sway the NRC's forthcoming recommendations follow critiques from experts and activists of a "stripped down" safety rule the agency's five commissioners approved with a 3-2 party-line vote in January.
As journalist Susan Q. Stranahan--who covered the Three Mile Island accident and co-authored Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster--explained in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Thursday, "NRC commissioners rejected a recommendation from their own senior staff to require reactor owners to recognize new climate reality and fortify their plants against real-world natural hazards such as flooding and seismic events."
The Democratic commissioners, Jeff Baran and Stephen Burns, strongly objected to the rule. Baran charged that is "nonsensical" to not require nuclear power plants "to be prepared for the actual flooding and earthquake hazards that could occur at their sites," while Burns pointed out that "the accident at Fukushima was a direct result of the operator and regulator failing to take action to account for new scientific knowledge related to natural hazards, especially flooding hazards."
And, as Stranahan noted: "For those keeping tabs, March is nuclear accident month. Three Mile Island occurred 40 years ago; Fukushima Daiichi, eight."
Meanwhile, on Thursday, massive flooding in the Midwest caused a dam to fail in Spencer, Nebraska and led the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) to start sandbagging a levee that protects the Cooper Nuclear Station from the Missouri River.
Though NPPD said Friday that "there is no threat to plant employees or to the public," Stephen Schwartz, a senior fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said in a series of tweets that "it's worth noting that Cooper Nuclear Station uses a General Electric Mark 1 boiling water reactor, identical in design to the 4 reactors that were flooded and subsequently exploded eight years ago this week in Fukushima."
\u201cAlthough the plant operator insists there is no danger, it's worth noting that Cooper Nuclear Station uses a General Electric Mark 1 boiling water reactor, identical in design to the 4 reactors that were flooded and subsequently exploded eight years ago this week in Fukushima. /2\u201d— Stephen Schwartz (@Stephen Schwartz) 1552667856
\u201cAbsent the tsunami, that scenario is unlikely in Nebraska, thanks in part to the post-Fukushima installation of portable pumps & generators. But it's not impossible. Earlier today, the Nebraska Public Power District declared an "unusual event" as the river continues to rise. /4X\u201d— Stephen Schwartz (@Stephen Schwartz) 1552667856
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Independent watchdogs are raising alarm about the nuclear power industry's ongoing efforts to convince federal regulators to scale back safety inspections and limit what "lower-level" issues are reported to the public.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)--an agency dominated by President Donald Trump's appointees--is currently reviewing its enforcement policies and is set to put forth recommendations for updating the nationwide rules in June. As part of that process, it sought input from plant operators and industry groups.
In September, one of those groups, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), outlined the industry's wish list in a letter (pdf). Requests include shifting to more "self-assessments," cutting back on public disclosures for problems at plants, and reducing the "burden of radiation-protection and emergency-preparedness inspections."
As The Associated Press reported:
The Trump NRC appointees and industry representatives say changes in oversight are warranted to reflect the industry's overall improved safety records and its financial difficulties, as the operating costs of the country's aging nuclear plants increase and affordable natural gas and solar and wind power gain in the energy market.
But the prospect of the Trump administration's regulation-cutting mission reaching the NRC alarms some independent industry watchdogs, who say the words "nuclear safety" and "deregulation" don't go together.
"For an industry that is increasingly under financial decline," Paul Gunter of the anti-nuclear group Beyond Nuclear told AP, "to take regulatory authority away from the NRC puts us on a collision course... with a nuclear accident."
Geoffrey Fettus, a senior attorney for nuclear issues at the Natural Resources Defense Council, suggested the potential consequences of rolling back nuclear regulations are arguably far greater than the Trump administration's efforts to relax other rules, such as the federal government's Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).
"The deregulatory agenda at SEC is a significant concern as well, but it's not a nuclear power plant," Fettus said.
Worries over how industry lobbying will sway the NRC's forthcoming recommendations follow critiques from experts and activists of a "stripped down" safety rule the agency's five commissioners approved with a 3-2 party-line vote in January.
As journalist Susan Q. Stranahan--who covered the Three Mile Island accident and co-authored Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster--explained in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Thursday, "NRC commissioners rejected a recommendation from their own senior staff to require reactor owners to recognize new climate reality and fortify their plants against real-world natural hazards such as flooding and seismic events."
The Democratic commissioners, Jeff Baran and Stephen Burns, strongly objected to the rule. Baran charged that is "nonsensical" to not require nuclear power plants "to be prepared for the actual flooding and earthquake hazards that could occur at their sites," while Burns pointed out that "the accident at Fukushima was a direct result of the operator and regulator failing to take action to account for new scientific knowledge related to natural hazards, especially flooding hazards."
And, as Stranahan noted: "For those keeping tabs, March is nuclear accident month. Three Mile Island occurred 40 years ago; Fukushima Daiichi, eight."
Meanwhile, on Thursday, massive flooding in the Midwest caused a dam to fail in Spencer, Nebraska and led the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) to start sandbagging a levee that protects the Cooper Nuclear Station from the Missouri River.
Though NPPD said Friday that "there is no threat to plant employees or to the public," Stephen Schwartz, a senior fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said in a series of tweets that "it's worth noting that Cooper Nuclear Station uses a General Electric Mark 1 boiling water reactor, identical in design to the 4 reactors that were flooded and subsequently exploded eight years ago this week in Fukushima."
\u201cAlthough the plant operator insists there is no danger, it's worth noting that Cooper Nuclear Station uses a General Electric Mark 1 boiling water reactor, identical in design to the 4 reactors that were flooded and subsequently exploded eight years ago this week in Fukushima. /2\u201d— Stephen Schwartz (@Stephen Schwartz) 1552667856
\u201cAbsent the tsunami, that scenario is unlikely in Nebraska, thanks in part to the post-Fukushima installation of portable pumps & generators. But it's not impossible. Earlier today, the Nebraska Public Power District declared an "unusual event" as the river continues to rise. /4X\u201d— Stephen Schwartz (@Stephen Schwartz) 1552667856
Independent watchdogs are raising alarm about the nuclear power industry's ongoing efforts to convince federal regulators to scale back safety inspections and limit what "lower-level" issues are reported to the public.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)--an agency dominated by President Donald Trump's appointees--is currently reviewing its enforcement policies and is set to put forth recommendations for updating the nationwide rules in June. As part of that process, it sought input from plant operators and industry groups.
In September, one of those groups, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), outlined the industry's wish list in a letter (pdf). Requests include shifting to more "self-assessments," cutting back on public disclosures for problems at plants, and reducing the "burden of radiation-protection and emergency-preparedness inspections."
As The Associated Press reported:
The Trump NRC appointees and industry representatives say changes in oversight are warranted to reflect the industry's overall improved safety records and its financial difficulties, as the operating costs of the country's aging nuclear plants increase and affordable natural gas and solar and wind power gain in the energy market.
But the prospect of the Trump administration's regulation-cutting mission reaching the NRC alarms some independent industry watchdogs, who say the words "nuclear safety" and "deregulation" don't go together.
"For an industry that is increasingly under financial decline," Paul Gunter of the anti-nuclear group Beyond Nuclear told AP, "to take regulatory authority away from the NRC puts us on a collision course... with a nuclear accident."
Geoffrey Fettus, a senior attorney for nuclear issues at the Natural Resources Defense Council, suggested the potential consequences of rolling back nuclear regulations are arguably far greater than the Trump administration's efforts to relax other rules, such as the federal government's Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).
"The deregulatory agenda at SEC is a significant concern as well, but it's not a nuclear power plant," Fettus said.
Worries over how industry lobbying will sway the NRC's forthcoming recommendations follow critiques from experts and activists of a "stripped down" safety rule the agency's five commissioners approved with a 3-2 party-line vote in January.
As journalist Susan Q. Stranahan--who covered the Three Mile Island accident and co-authored Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster--explained in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Thursday, "NRC commissioners rejected a recommendation from their own senior staff to require reactor owners to recognize new climate reality and fortify their plants against real-world natural hazards such as flooding and seismic events."
The Democratic commissioners, Jeff Baran and Stephen Burns, strongly objected to the rule. Baran charged that is "nonsensical" to not require nuclear power plants "to be prepared for the actual flooding and earthquake hazards that could occur at their sites," while Burns pointed out that "the accident at Fukushima was a direct result of the operator and regulator failing to take action to account for new scientific knowledge related to natural hazards, especially flooding hazards."
And, as Stranahan noted: "For those keeping tabs, March is nuclear accident month. Three Mile Island occurred 40 years ago; Fukushima Daiichi, eight."
Meanwhile, on Thursday, massive flooding in the Midwest caused a dam to fail in Spencer, Nebraska and led the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) to start sandbagging a levee that protects the Cooper Nuclear Station from the Missouri River.
Though NPPD said Friday that "there is no threat to plant employees or to the public," Stephen Schwartz, a senior fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said in a series of tweets that "it's worth noting that Cooper Nuclear Station uses a General Electric Mark 1 boiling water reactor, identical in design to the 4 reactors that were flooded and subsequently exploded eight years ago this week in Fukushima."
\u201cAlthough the plant operator insists there is no danger, it's worth noting that Cooper Nuclear Station uses a General Electric Mark 1 boiling water reactor, identical in design to the 4 reactors that were flooded and subsequently exploded eight years ago this week in Fukushima. /2\u201d— Stephen Schwartz (@Stephen Schwartz) 1552667856
\u201cAbsent the tsunami, that scenario is unlikely in Nebraska, thanks in part to the post-Fukushima installation of portable pumps & generators. But it's not impossible. Earlier today, the Nebraska Public Power District declared an "unusual event" as the river continues to rise. /4X\u201d— Stephen Schwartz (@Stephen Schwartz) 1552667856
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.