Yes, reform the NRC.  The best reform would be to start closing down the worst nuclear plants and pledge to work at breakneck speed to ramp up renewable energy.  Then rename the agency -- the National Renewable Energy Commission.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/opinion/reform-the-nrc.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120312

 

March 11, 2012

Asleep at the Controls

By RICHARD BRODSKY

THE Fukushima meltdowns, which began a year ago this week, were a disaster — but also, at least in the United States, an opportunity. Everyone was awake and interested. Thoughtful questions, wild speculation and genuine, heartfelt public concern about nuclear safety were everywhere.

Predictably, the nuclear industry hunkered down, filling the airwaves with its own spin. The real failure, however, was at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which, some hoped, might seize the moment to push for real discussion and change. It didn’t.

A year has passed, though, with almost no progress. One thing has become clear: It’s not enough to push for change at the industry level. We must also reform the regulators themselves.

The commission’s failures are legion. For one thing, it has repeatedly fallen short on the issue of fire safety. In 1975, a reactor in Alabama almost melted down because the electric cables that control reactor shutdown in an emergency burned through. The commission required upgraded insulation of the cables in all nuclear plants, but when it tested the insulation, it failed.

But instead of enforcing its own standards, the commission issued secret and arguably illegal exemptions that allowed many reactors, including those at New York’s Indian Point, to continue the use of the defective insulation.

Then there is the question of relicensing. The operating licenses of dozens of plants are about to expire, and the companies that own them are seeking new 20-year licenses. In the years since the reactors were built, the commission has toughened design, operations and location standards, which cover such things as fire protection, emergency evacuation, spent-fuel safety and terrorism.

These rules should logically apply to all plants, new or old. Instead, the commission refuses to ask if the reactors up for relicensing meet them.

Moreover, the Fukushima meltdowns, which were set off by an earthquake-triggered tsunami, raised questions about the vulnerability of America’s reactors to earthquakes. Indian Point, for example, is built above and near a series of faults. But the commission refused to do a full risk assessment and refused to consider earthquake damage as part of relicensing, announcing that “this is really not a serious concern.”

While such health and safety dangers from reactors are real, perhaps an even greater danger is the on-site storage of spent fuel, which is thousands of times more toxic than the uranium put into the reactor. While the reactor is surrounded by a concrete containment vessel, the commission allows spent fuel to be kept in a large, aboveground and unprotected pool of water.

The pools have been known to leak, and they are vulnerable to fire and terrorist attack. Fukushima presented an opportunity to address this lingering threat, and yet the commission once again failed to act.

Finally, there’s citizen evacuation. After the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, the commission required evacuation plans for areas around reactors, but limited them to 10 miles because “immediate life-threatening doses would generally not occur outside the zone.” That leaves all of New York City without an evacuation plan in the case of a disaster at Indian Point. (On the other hand, after Fukushima the commission recommended that Americans in Japan within 50 miles of the plant evacuate.)

These are reasonable concerns, and the public wants answers. Instead, on each of these issues, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has chosen to delay or stonewall.

To be fair, last month the commission required a new assessment of the earthquake risk at Indian Point and elsewhere. But the assessment will not be completed for three or four years, well after the relicensing process ends.

The commission has also trumpeted its denial of more than 40 new applications for exemption from fire safety rules. That’s a step in the right direction, but such public crowing masks the commission’s practice of granting secret exemptions over the years.

There is a real need to reform the commission, whether one supports or opposes nuclear power. We need a fast-track, independent review of exemptions and the resulting weakened safety standards; we also need a similarly independent, rigorous inquiry into the commission and its ties to the nuclear industry.

Beyond reviews, Congress should create new, stricter requirements for action by the commission, including stronger rules against exemptions from safety and health regulations.

In order for nuclear power to play a significant role in our energy future, the American public needs to have confidence in the industry and the government agencies that oversee it. That begins with real reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard Brodsky is a senior fellow at Demos and a former New York State assemblyman.

 

Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218.  Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/

 

"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs