That is why I think Jascko was a terrible regulator…at the heart of it he was dishonest. He was carrying the industry’s water.
I think the NRC employees are just trying to survive and feed their families. Just like the rest of us. A survival tactic is to minimize your profile….the electric utilities and the politicians hold tremendous powers over them. The Republicans will slit their throats if they get crossed...the Democrats will just turn their backs on them.
They basically don’t want to risk losing their great jobs they love.
At the bottom of it, the pro safety folks just don't have the resources and the access to the foundational information as the economic interest of the nuclear industry. It is a terrible mismatch of power and access to information...
I also think the uneducated anti nuclear extremist disserved our nation...cut of the main proportion of our population into getting involved with maintaining standards.
U.S. Nuclear Agency Hid Concerns, Hailed Safety Record as
Fukushima Melted
By Bill Dedman
In the tense days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami
crippled the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan on March 11, 2011, staff at
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission made a concerted effort to play down the
risk of earthquakes and tsunamis to America’s aging nuclear plants, according
to thousands of internal emails reviewed by NBC News.
The emails, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act,
show that the campaign to reassure the public about America’s nuclear industry
came as the agency’s own experts were questioning U.S. safety standards and
scrambling to determine whether new rules were needed to ensure that the
meltdown occurring at the Japanese plant could not occur here.
At the end of that long first weekend of the crisis three
years ago, Scott Burnell, a manager in the agency’s media and public relations
wing, thanked his colleagues for sticking to the talking points that his team
had been distributing to senior officials and the public.
"While we know more than these say," Burnell
wrote, "we're sticking to this story for now."
There are numerous examples in the emails of apparent
misdirection or concealment in the initial weeks after the Japanese plant was
devastated by a 9.0 earthquake and 50-foot tsunami that knocked out power and
cooling systems at the six-reactor plant, eventually causing releases of
radioactive material:
Trying to distance the U.S. agency from the Japanese crisis,
an NRC manager told staff to hide from reporters the presence of Japanese
engineers in the NRC's operations center in Maryland.
If asked whether the Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the
California coast could withstand the same size tsunami that had hit Japan,
spokespeople were told not to reveal that NRC scientists were still studying
that question. As for whether Diablo could survive an earthquake of the same
magnitude, "We're not so sure about, but again we are not talking about
that," said one email.
When skeptical news articles appeared, the NRC dissuaded
news organizations from using the NRC's own data on earthquake risks at U.S. nuclear
plants, including the Indian Point Energy Center near New York City.
And when asked to help reporters explain what would happen
during the worst-case scenario -- a nuclear meltdown -- the agency declined to
address the questions.
As the third anniversary of Fukushima on Tuesday approaches,
the emails pull back the curtain on the agency’s efforts to protect the
industry it is supposed to regulate. The NRC officials didn't lie, but they
didn't always tell the whole truth either. When someone asked about a topic
that might reflect negatively on the industry, they changed the subject.
NBC News requested in late March 2011 all of the emails sent
and received by certain NRC staffers during the first week of the crisis. Other
news organizations and watchdogs filed similar requests. The NRC has now been
posting thousands of emails in its public reading room over the past two years.
The NRC declined to discuss specific emails or
communications. But NRC Public Affairs Director Eliot Brenner provided an
emailed statement: "The NRC Office of Public Affairs strives to be as open
and transparent as possible, providing the public accurate information in the
proper context. We take our communication mission seriously. We did then and we
do now. The frustration displayed in the chosen e-mails reflects more on the
extreme stress our team was under at the time to assure accuracy in a context
in which information from Japan was scarce to nonexistent. These e-mails fall
well short of an accurate picture of our communications with the American
public immediately after the event and during the past three years."
Dating back to the Three Mile Island nuclear crisis in 1979,
many nuclear watchdogs and critics have said that the NRC acts first to protect
the industry, and its own reputation. One critic said these emails solidify
that perception.
"The NRC knew a lot more about what was going on than
it wanted to tell the American people," said Edwin Lyman, senior scientist
at the nuclear watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists and co-author of
the new book "Fukushima:
The Story of a Nuclear Disaster," which relied on some of the same
emails. "They immediately put out information that implied that U.S.
reactors were in a better position to withstand Fukushima type events than
Fukushima reactors were, but it was clear that the what the NRC knew internally
was not nearly as positive."
'We all need to say a prayer'
From the earliest hours of the crisis, the emails among NRC
staff show deep concern about the developing crisis in Japan, particularly
among the technical experts.
The first word that the powerful earthquake and tsunami
waves had devastated the Fukushima plant came early morning (Eastern time) on
March 11, 2011. Throughout the day, staff at NRC headquarters in Rockland, Md.,
struggled to learn what was going on in Japan. The chief of the NRC Component
Integrity Branch, senior engineer David Rudland, was asked by a colleague if he
had any new information. [The emails excerpted in this article are shown
in full in a PDF file.]
From: Rudland, David
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 10:54 AM
No, at this point all we know is that they are struggling to
shut down the plant.
We all need to say a prayer.…
By that afternoon, the news was worse. An officer in NRC
research passed on to his colleagues a status update from the Japanese
electrical company.
From: Nosek, Andrew
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:46 PM
There was a triple SBO.
SBO is nuclear jargon for a station blackout. The earthquake
had cut electrical power to the plant, and the tsunami had damaged the backup
diesel generators.
NRC operations officer Daniel Mills had an emotional
reaction:
From: Mills, Daniel (NRC operations officer)
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:49 PM
BBC is reporting radiation levels at reactor are 1000x
normal. I feel like crying.
The NRC staff recognized immediately the public-relations
nightmare that Fukushima presented for nuclear power in the United States. More
than 30 of America's 100 nuclear power reactors have the same brand of General
Electric reactors or containment system used in Fukushima.
American nuclear reactors are well into middle age. The
median age of an operating reactor in the U.S. is 34 years, placing start-up in
midst of the Carter administration. The oldest -- the Ginna plant near
Rochester, N.Y. -- was licensed in 1969, the year Neil Armstrong walked on the
moon. Only four of the 100 reactors have begun generating power since 1990. The
newest, at Watts Bar in Tennessee, was licensed in 1996, when many of this
year's high school seniors were born.
The unfolding disaster in Japan triggered immediate alarm
inside the NRC about plans to announce regulatory actions. Seeing the video
from Japan, NRC engineer Richard Barkley pointed out that the NRC staff that
week to recommend extending for 20 years the license for reactors a nuclear
power plant in New England called Vermont Yankee. He warned colleagues,
"That was a very scary picture to myself, much less the public, especially
since the machine is a GE designed BWR (boiled-water reactor) not radically
different in size, age and design than some high visibility plants in my
region. I can see the cards and letters coming to my in-box by Monday."
(Ultimately, the NRC delayed the Vermont Yankee re-licensing only briefly,
approving it on March 21. This year the plant's owner plans to close it, a
victim of the competition from falling prices for natural gas.)
Three decades after the partial meltdown at the Three Mile
Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, nuclear power companies saw hope for a
renaissance, with the first new reactors in years being planned. But public
opinion was fragile: If the Fukushima reactors, built by American companies,
could be overwhelmed by natural disasters, could the public trust that American
power plants were safe?
'We are not talking about that'
In the NRC's Office of Public Affairs, the first talking
points had been written and distributed by 10:25 a.m. on Friday, less than 10
hours after the quake. NRC technical experts were cautioned repeatedly not to
make any public statements. All information had to come from Public Affairs.
In an email sent at 2:56 p.m., the updated talking points
were unequivocally reassuring: "The NRC has regulations in place that
require licensees to design their plants to withstand environmental hazards,
including earthquakes ... based on historical data from the area's maximum
credible earthquake, with an additional margin added."
But privately, the NRC was aware of uncertainties.
An hour before that email was sent, Brenner, the public
affairs director, sent a "great work so far" memo to his staff at HQ
and around the U.S. His third bullet point highlighted he NRC's role in helping
Japanese engineers deal with the problems at Fukushima -- a fact not mentioned
in the NRC's press releases that day. The emails indicate that the Obama
administration and the NRC were keen to keep up the appearance that they were
merely observing the Japanese nuclear crisis and had no responsibility for
helping resolve it.
From: Brenner, Eliot
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 1:54:57 PM
While one reporter knows or has guessed that there are
Japanese here in our Ops center in communication with their home authorities,
we will NOT make the[m] available and we will NOT volunteer their presence. If
anyone knows they are here and wants to talk with them, they will have to make
the request through the embassy to have it relayed to these folks.
The memo also instructed staff to evade any questions about
efforts by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to model the
effects of similar earthquakes and tsunamis on California plants:
“NRR is getting tasked with making an overlay of the
Japanese conditions … to see how west coast plants stack up against it,” it
said. “We think preliminarily Diablo would have had no trouble with a wave that
size. [For an earthquake of about] 8.9 we're not so sure about, but again we
are not talking about that.”
NBC News
In congressional testimony and interviews in that first
week, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko was quick to say that the NRC could learn
lessons from Fukushima.
"We're going to take a good solid look at everything
that comes out of Japan, and if we need to make modifications to our facilities
in this country, then we'll do that," he told NBC News on March 16. He did
not disclose that the NRC technical staff had already been reassessing, before
Fukushima, increased risks from earthquakes, tsunamis, dam failures and power
blackouts.
'Non-public information'
The talking points written during the emergency for NRC
commissioners and other officials were divided into two sections: "public
answer" and "additional technical, non-public information."
Often the two parts didn't quite match.
One topic the NRC avoided in the talking points, even when
responding to a direct question: meltdown.
"Q. What happens when/if a plant 'melts down'?
"Public Answer: In short, nuclear power plants in the
United States are designed to be safe. To prevent the release of radioactive
material, there are multiple barriers between the radioactive material and the
environment, including the fuel cladding, the heavy steel reactor vessel itself
and the containment building, usually a heavily reinforced structure of
concrete and steel several feet thick.
"Additional, non-technical, non-public information: The
melted core may melt through the bottom of the vessel and flow onto the
concrete containment floor. The core may melt through the containment liner and
release radioactive material to the environment."
The Japanese public television network, NHK, asked if the
NRC could provide a graphic depicting what happens during a meltdown of a
nuclear reactor.
From: McIntyre, David
Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 9:02 AM
NRC would not have such a graphic. I suspect any number of
anti-nuclear power organizations might.
When reporters asked if the Japanese emergency could affect
licensing of new reactors in the U.S., the public answer was "It is not
appropriate to hypothesize on such a future scenario at this point."
The non-public information was more direct: This event could
potentially call into question the NRC's seismic requirements, which could
require the staff to re-evaluate the staff's approval of the AP1000 and ESBWR (the
newest reactor designs from Westinghouse and General Electric) design and
certifications.
On the subject of tsunamis, the public assurances omitted
the "non-public " nuances that might have given the public reasons to
doubt nuclear power safety:
Design standards varied significantly from plant to plant in
the U.S.
The experience in Japan had taught the NRC that it needed to
study the dangerous effects of “drawdown,” the powerful receding of ocean water
near the shore that can precede a tsunami's arrival.
And although the U.S. was developing new tsunami standards,
those wouldn't be in draft form for another year.
'It was a hydrogen explosion'
The NRC spokespeople sometimes had trouble following the
public debate, because for days their computers were blocked by security rules
from accessing Twitter and YouTube. And they often had incomplete information
about events in Japan.
From: McIntyre, David
Date: Saturday, March 12, 2011, 10:02 PM
Just saw an incoherent discussion on cnn by Bill Nye the
science guy who apparently knows zilcho about reactors and an idiot weatherman
who said Hydrogen explosion? Pfft. I'm not buying it.
His boss sent back the following reply, correcting the
staffer and explaining plans to ask the Obama administration to help blunt
critical news coverage.
From: Brenner, Eliot
Date: Saturday, March 12, 2011, 10:07 PM
1: There is a good chance it was a hydrogen explosion that
took the roof off that building, though we are not saying that publicly.
2: I have just reached out to CNN and asked them to call
(former NRC Chairman Nils) Diaz, and reached out to push the white house yet
again to start talking on background or getting out in front of some of this
crap.
On March 20, when Energy Secretary Steven Chu hesitated on
CNN when asked if U.S. plants could withstand a 9.0 earthquake?
McIntyre, one of the agency’s spokesmen, suggested to his
bosses what Chu should have said:
From: McIntyre, David
Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
He should just say "Yes, it can." Worry about
being wrong when it doesn't.
Sorry if I sound cynical.
The public affairs staff showed disdain in the emails for
nuclear watchdog groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and also
the Nuclear Control Institute.
When the UCS raised concerns about diesel backup power and
batteries being inadequate, as at Fukushima, spokesman McIntyre dismissed it as
"bleating" from nuclear power foes.
When Steven Dolley, research director of the NCI, asked
McIntyre for a nuclear containment expert to speak to a reporter, the NRC asked
if he had contacted the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute.
Dolley asked, "So, should I say NRC is deferring
inquiries to NEI?" suggesting that the NRC was deferring to the industry
it is supposed to regulate.
McIntyre shared this exchange with his bosses, adding the
comment, "F---ing a-hole."
There is NO SUCH NRC REPORT!
The NRC's Public Affairs staff attempted to discredit news
reports that raised questions about nuclear plants, even when they were based
on NRC data.
A story by this reporter for msnbc.com (now NBCNews.com)
reported that the NRC had published
a study six months earlier with new estimates of the risk that an
earthquake could cause damage to the core of U.S. nuclear power plants. The
plants were listed in alphabetical order, along with the NRC's risk estimates.
The msnbc.com story, published on March 16, ranked the U.S.
nuclear plants by those NRC estimates. Surprisingly, the highest risk was not
on the Pacific Coast, where plants are designed and built with severe
earthquakes in mind, but in the Central and Eastern states, where scientists
have raised their estimate of the earthquake risk since the plants were
designed and built. The story said that the NRC still described the plants as
safe, but also said the margin of error had shrunk.
We had checked our understanding of the report with NRC
earthquake experts, but Burnell responded to the story by asking the same staff
to find fault with it.
From: Burnell, Scott
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 6:22 AM
I know you're going to have a cow over this - somewhat
inevitable when a reporter new to the subject tries to summarize things. Apart
from "you're totally off-base," what specific technical corrections
can we ask for??
OPA (Office of Public Affairs) - this is likely to spark a
lot of follow-up. The immediate response would be "that's a very
incomplete look at the overall research and we continue to believe U.S.
reactors are capable of withstanding the strongest earthquake their sites could
experience." I'll share whatever we get from the experts.
Senior officials at the industry's lobbying arm, the Nuclear
Energy Institute, sent emails asking the NRC for help rebutting the story.
Burnell urgently asked again for errors in the article.
From: Burnell, Scott
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 11:11 AM
Folks, the expected calls are coming in -- We need a better
response ASAP!
But the NRC experts found nothing to correct.
From: Beasley, Benjamin
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 12:31 PM
I have received no concerns or corrections regarding the
MSNBC article.
From: McIntyre, David
Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 2:20 PM
I just filed this request for correction with The Huffington
Post, which has a report of Cuomo wanting to shut IP based on the MSNBC report:
There is NO SUCH NRC REPORT! The NRC does not rank nuclear
power plants according to their vulnerability to earthquakes. This
"ranking" was developed by an MSNBC reporter using partial
information and an even more partial understanding of how we evaluate plants
for seismic risk. Each plant is evaluated individually according to the geology
of its site, not by a "one-size-fits-all" model - therefore such
rankings or comparisons are highly misleading. Please correct this report.
His colleague in Atlanta, spokesman Joey Ledford, replied,
"Great talking point, Dave. I wish I had it during my 10 or so calls today
trying to debunk this thing."
The New York Times, which was reporting a story about Indian
Point, was dissuaded from using the NRC's risk estimates. We asked the New York
Times reporter, Peter Applebome, why he ignored the NRC data. He replied in an
email, "Burnell said it wasn't accurate and included rankings the NRC
never made. I have no idea if that's correct, but I was writing a column on
deadline and figured I did not have the ability to figure out who was right in
the time I had."
In his piece,
Applebome quoted the NRC downplaying the risk: "Officials with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission say the site is safe and that its earthquake threat is on
the lower end nationally and in the Northeast." The NRC's recent study
with a different picture was ignored.
The NRC followed up with a
blog post from Brenner, the public affairs chief, cautioning the public, “Don't
Believe Everything You Read.” Brenner called the msnbc.com report "highly
misleading."
He didn't mention that its figures came from the NRC.
