Study Questions Nuclear Plant Safety

An environmental group is calling on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to monitor nuclear power plants more closely before there’s a severe accident. Lester Graham reports the group issued a report on nuke plants that have had problems:

Transcript

An environmental group is calling on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to monitor nuclear power plants more closely before there’s a severe accident. Lester Graham reports the group issued a report on nuke plants that have had problems:


The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists looked at problems that caused nuclear reactors to shut down for a year or more. It’s happened 51 times. The report found 36 of those year-plus outages were caused by “excessive” tolerance by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


The nuclear industry notes there has not been a serious accident since Three Mile Island in 1979. The industry says if it can replace its aging plants, things will be even safer.


David Lochbaum is the author of the report. He says hold on, not until you fix the problem.


“Nuclear power plants are aging. But the conditions that led up to these year-plus outages need to be addressed to provide a proper foundation for any new nuclear power plants that are built. Otherwise we’ll just be replicating yesterday’s mistakes.”


The report includes six recommendations to identify and fix problems at nuclear power plants faster.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Storing Nuke Waste on Above Ground Lots

  • Nuclear waste storage is an issue that concerns many. Some worry that if storage facilities at Yucca Mountain aren't completed soon enough, above-ground storage will have to be employed. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission)

Some federal officials say work on a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain isn’t moving fast enough. So they want the government to start developing above-ground storage sites. But one private firm says above-ground storage is already available. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sandra Harris
reports:

Transcript

Some federal officials say work on a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain isn’t moving fast enough, so they want the government to start developing above-ground storage sites. But one private firm says above-ground storage is already available. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sandra Harris reports:


House Energy and Water Development Committee Chair David Hobson has put ten million dollars in an appropriations bill to find interim above-ground waste storage sites.


But the CEO of private fuel storage says a temporary site his groups worked on for more than ten years will hold all the country’s waste.


John Parkyn says Hobson may not be aware of it.


“I’m certainly communicating to him exactly where we are, but the idea that we would spend significant amounts of taxpayer money to replicate something that has already been funded with non-taxpayer money would certainly involve a lot of political scrutiny, as to why you would ever replicate it and add another six or seven years on.”


Parkyn says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could soon approve or deny his company’s license for its site on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation in Utah.


For the GLRC, I’m Sandra Harris.

Related Links

Nuke Waste Site Moves Forward

Initial approval of a temporary site to store spent nuclear waste at an Indian reservation in Utah is welcome news for eight electric utilities and cooperatives around the country – especially since approval of a permanent site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has been delayed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sandra Harris reports:

Transcript

Initial approval of a temporary site to store spent nuclear waste at an Indian reservation in Utah is
welcome news for eight electric utilities and cooperatives around the country – especially since
approval of a permanent site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has been delayed. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Sandra Harris reports:


The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has recommended an operating license for a temporary
nuclear fuel storage site on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation in central Utah. Officials say if
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants the license, the earliest waste could be shipped would
be 2008.


John Parkyn is the CEO of Private Fuel Storage – the group hoping to build the site. He says
waste is currently stored at 72 sites around the country and poses a safety issue.


“We have a isolated site in the middle of the desert where the nearest person is 2 1/2 miles away,
so even the security issue, post 9-11, is greatly enhanced by storing it in one location.”


Opponents to the temporary site say they still hope the license won’t be granted. They fear the
temporary Skull Valley site will become permanent because of the delays occurring at Yucca
Mountain.


For the GLRC, I’m Sandra Harris.

Related Links

Attorneys General Call for Nuke Security Upgrades

  • Several state attorneys general are calling for security upgrades for nuclear power plants. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Several state attorneys general are urging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to upgrade security at nuclear power plants to defend against terrorist attacks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Several state attorneys general are urging the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to upgrade security at nuclear power plants
to defend against terrorist attacks. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has stepped up security at nuclear power
plants since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, but it’s still
using a defense plan designed 35 years ago based on four men attacking by
land.


A nuclear watchdog group called Committee to Bridge the Gap has filed
a petition with the NRC, asking that the plan be updated to take into
account the methods and numbers terrorists have actually used. Seven
attorneys general signed a letter supporting the security update. Paul
Laraby is with the New York Attorney General’s office.


“I think what the AGs are trying to do is to introduce common sense
approach to an emerging threat that perhaps was discounted thirty-five years ago.”


Even after more than three years since the attacks, the NRC still has not
determined how it should upgrade the its defense plans for nuclear power
plants.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

New Uranium Enrichment Plant to Be Built?

  • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing a plan for building a uranium enrichment plant in Ohio. Supporters of the plant welcome the jobs, but many others are worried about radioactive waste. (Photo courtesy of the NRC)

Nuclear power plants need enriched uranium to produce power. Today, there’s only one uranium enrichment facility operating in the U.S. Now, there’s a proposal to build a new one in southern Ohio. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight reports, there’s debate over how safe the proposed plant will be:

Transcript

Nuclear power plants need enriched uranium to produce power.
Today, there’s only one uranium enrichment facility operating in the
U.S. Now, there’s a proposal to build a new one in southern Ohio.
And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight reports, there’s
debate over how safe the proposed plant will be:


The one-point-five billion dollar project is planned by USEC, Incorporated, the world’s largest producer of enriched uranium. Company officials say it would generate 500 jobs and be built at the site of an old, off-line uranium enrichment plant. Charles Wiltshire is still employed there and he’s all for building the new facility.


“I would like to see future job opportunities for my children and grandchildren who will be finishing college about the time the centrifuge plant is due to go online.”


But environmentalists and concerned citizens are worried about the radioactive waste. They’re also fearful of water pollution and health hazards for plant workers. The State of Ohio has promised more than 100 million dollars in financial incentives and is confident that the new plant will not put anyone in danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing the company’s application and is supposed to make a decision by early 2007.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Fred Kight.

Related Links

Still No Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites

A new government report finds that twenty-four years after the federal government told the states to find ways to dispose of low-level radioactive waste, not a single site has been built. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A new government report finds that 24 years after the federal government told the states
to find ways to dispose of low-level radioactive waste, not a single site has been built.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


In 1980, the states became responsible for providing disposal sites for most of the low-
level radioactive waste. Low-level waste includes things such as clothing and tools
exposed to radiation in medicine, research and at nuclear power plants. But to date… not
one disposal facility has been built by a state. The investigative arm of Congress, the General
Accounting Office, reports that an older facility in South Carolina is the only
site still accepting waste… but it’s expected to restrict shipments by the middle of 2008.
The GAO’s Robin Nazzaro says it’s not a crisis situation yet…


“The bottom line fall back, though, is that sites can also store this waste at their facilities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission does allow for storage of waste as long as it’s safe
and secure.”


The GAO says a few states have plans to build facilities in the future… but nothing is
under construction right now.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Debating the Need for Radiation Pills

  • Some states are arguing with the federal government's program to hand out radiation pills to those who live near power plants. The states say the pills don't protect from all exposures and give residents a false sense of security. Photo: Lester Graham

Since the September eleventh terrorist attacks, political pressure has been building to distribute potassium iodide pills to people who live around nuclear power plants. The pills help reduce the damage from exposure to certain kinds of radioactivity in the event of a release, but not all states with nuclear power plants are distributing the pills. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Since the September eleventh terrorist attacks, political
pressure has been building to distribute potassium
iodide pills to people who live around nuclear power
plants. The pills help reduce the damage from
exposure to certain kinds of radioactivity in the event of
a release, but not all states with nuclear power plants
are distributing the pills. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


David Lochbaum is a former nuclear engineer who is now with the Union of Concerned
Scientists. He says everyone at risk should have some of the pills handy….


“We feel the federal government should step in and require potassium iodide to be stock-
piled for the residents within ten miles of all nuclear power plants, not just some people
in some states.”


Lochbaum and his colleagues at the Union of Concerned Scientists say if the potassium
iodide pill is taken at the proper time, it saturates the thyroid with a stable or benign form
of iodine. That way, if a radioactive cloud is released from a nuclear power plant,
harmful radioactive iodine breathed in is not retained by the thyroid.


“If you don’t take potassium iodide, your body tends to absorb the radioactive iodine. It
tends to assault your body for days or months and can lead to thyroid cancers and other
illnesses that are easily avoidable with this very cheap pill that can be taken.”


But some of the states with nuclear power plants say too much stock is being put into the
potassium iodide pill. Illinois has more nuclear power plants than any other state in the
nation. Thomas Ortciger is the head of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety…


“It’s a bogus issue that I think has been blown way out of proportion because of 9-11.”


Ortciger says his state is not participating in the federal government’s potassium iodide
pill program. He says handing out the pill to everyone who lives near a nuclear power
plant can give the residents a false sense of security…


“It is not a cure all. It is not a total radiation pill. It defends one small part of the body —
quite frankly it there was an accident or there was an act of terrorism and there was a
release from a plant, there’s probably seven – eight other nuclides that could be just as
dangerous that the people would become contaminated with.”


That’s not stopping the federal government from encouraging the states to sign on to its
potassium iodide pill program. Sue Gagner is with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
She says the N.R.C. believes the potassium iodide pills are helpful…


“It is certainly true that potassium iodide does only provide protection from the one
radioactive nuclide, radioactive iodine. So, there are others that could be released in a
severe nuclear accident. That’s why we only refer to potassium iodide as a supplement to
evacuation and sheltering which could be needed.”


Gagner says citizens should be instructed that the potassium iodide pill does not mean it’s
safe to stick around a contaminated area to gather a few more belongings. People should
leave as soon as possible. But… in the states where the federal program has been used…
surveys a year after the potassium iodide pills were pre-distributed have found that as
many as 90-percent of the people can’t even locate the pills. Gagner told us the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission doesn’t implement the program… so, it leaves it up to the states
to decide whether or not it works… when we asked about the programs effectiveness…


“So, there’s no way to measure whether this is effective or a complete waste of money.”


“Well, I don’t think it’s a complete waste of money. No, I think it can be effective when
used along with the other methods of possible evacuation or sheltering and it can be
effective.”


But some state regulators are skeptical. In Illinois, the Department of Nuclear Safety
refuses to get involved with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s program… but it has
launched it’s own potassium iodide pill program. Director Thomas Ortciger says there’s
been too much political pressure to completely ignore the issue… so the pill is being
made available to people who live near a nuclear power plant and who ask for it…


“For people who feel that this will give them some comfort, we’re going to make this
available, but it’s certainly not going to be part of the Illinois plan.”


Ortciger says the terrorist threat since nine-eleven has only persuaded Illinois emergency
officials to concentrate on the one thing they’re certain will work in case of a radioactive
release… quick evacuation… and the potassium iodide pills are a distraction from that
goal.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.

DEBATING THE NEED FOR RADIATION PILLS (Short Version)

  • Some states are arguing with the federal government's program to hand out radiation pills to those who live near power plants. The states say the pills don't protect from all exposures and give residents a false sense of security. Photo: Lester Graham

A group of scientists concerned about the environment wants the federal government to force states with nuclear power plants to stock-pile pills that help prevent exposure to radioactivity. Some states don’t think the pill is helpful. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

Transcript

A group of scientists concerned about the environment wants the federal government to
force states with nuclear power plants to stock-pile pills that help prevent exposure to
radioactivity. Some states don’t think the pill is helpful. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham has more.


The Union of Concerned Scientists wants the potassium iodide pills distributed to
everyone who lives within ten miles of a nuclear power plant. David Lochbaum is with
the group. He says it’s protection in case there’s ever an accident or a terrorist attack on
the plant and radioactivity is released.


“Potassium iodide is taken to saturate your thyroid with a stable or benign form of iodine
so when radioactive iodine goes by and your body breathes it, it’s not retained by the
body. You just exhale it.”


But fewer than half of the states with nuclear power plants have signed up for the federal
program to make the potassium iodide pills available. One of the concerns is that people
will stay longer gathering belongings, thinking the pill protects them from radioactivity.
It actually only protects for one of several different harmful radionuclides. Some
emergency experts say the best bet is to simply evacuate people as quickly as possible.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.

Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Power Plants

  • The Braidwood nuclear power plant is 50 miles from Chicago. Industry, government, and environmental groups are trying to determine what kinds of risks the plants might face from terrorist attacks.

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there have been all kinds of speculation about the next target. One of the worst case scenarios conjured up is crashing a jet into a nuclear power plant. Since September 11th, the nuclear power industry and regulators have been trying to determine what other kinds of threats the plants might face. However, progress has been slow. No one seems sure how far to take the security issue. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
there have been all kinds of speculation about the next target. One of
the worst case scenarios conjured up is crashing a jet into a nuclear
power plant. Since September 11th, the nuclear power industry and
regulators have been trying to determine what other kinds of threats
the plants might face. However, progress has been slow. No one seems
sure how far to take the security issue. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The idea of a radioactive release from a nuclear power plant is chilling.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has always required plant
operators to keep security tight and the plant owners generally thought
of the security requirements as a necessary evil… a costly regulatory
requirement. That changed on September 11th.


Jack Skolds is the President of Exelon Nuclear, which operates 17
reactors in the U.S. He says the nuclear power industry’s opinions
about security have changed. Now, it’s seen as not just a regulatory
requirement, but as absolutely essential for the safety of the plants.


“And I didn’t believe this necessarily before September 11th.
I believe there are people out there who want to inflict some kind of
harm to nuclear power plants somewhere in the world. And one of those
plants might be one of ours. So, we take this very seriously and we’re
going to do everything that we need to do to protect the security of the
plants.”


Exelon, just as other nuclear power plant operators, has increased
spending on security by about 25 percent. Security guards are better
armed. There are more inspections of people and cars going in and out
of plants. Barricades have been put up. But, Skolds concedes that
nuclear power plants can’t defend against everything.


“I wouldn’t call anything impenetrable. I think that would be a stretch.
But, I would tell you I know of no other civilian industry
that has as high a degree of security as the nuclear power industry
does.”


But no one is testing that security. The government used to conduct
mock attacks – so-called force-on-force tests – against plants to test
security. Since September 11th, there have been no force-on-force drills.


The government says it’s still trying to figure out what kind of threats a
group of terrorist might present. So, the nuclear power plants are
waiting. They’re waiting for the government to come up with likely
terrorism scenarios and strategies to defend against them. Once that’s
complete, then there will likely be a discussion about who pays for
those defenses, the nuclear power industry or the government.


David Lochbaum is the nuclear safety engineer for the Union of
Concerned Scientists. He says that if there’s an attack against a plant,
the nuclear power industry and government need to be able to tell the
public that they did everything they could to prevent it. The Union of
Concerned Scientists says that should start with bringing back
force-on-force drills… and then focus on the possibility of insider
sabotage by giving lie detector tests to nuclear power plant employees.
But, those things aren’t happening…


“So, we think there are shortfalls that would prevent officials from reassuring the American public that everything that can reasonably be done has been done.”


Lochbaum adds that the government needs to work faster to develop
likely attack scenarios and defenses so that the nuclear power plants
know the best ways to beef up security.


The power plants are not the only ones waiting for those scenarios.
Agencies responsible for evacuating areas around a plant are also
waiting. Thomas Ortciger is the Director of the Illinois Department of
Nuclear Safety. Illinois has more reactors than any other state. He says
while his staff is trying to come up with plans to react to the most likely
situations and looking for federal government guidance… they’re
getting pressure to do something… or , actually, everything… and do it
right now.


“There are various outside groups, particularly “anti-” groups that have developed scenarios that are absolutely bizzare. I mean, there are so many things that
would have to happen at a plant. I mean, this is hysteria at its best. You know,
cut it out guys. Let’s talk in real terms. Let’s try to help one another make this thing work.”


Ortciger says the evacuation plans already in place appear to be enough, but it’s difficult to know. These plans weren’t designed with terrorist attacks in mind.


“What we need to see is whether or not there are any credible scenarios where the time we believe we have to implement an evacuation would be shortened. But, we have not seen a credible argument for that yet.”


And so state and local emergency agencies and the nuclear industry are
all waiting for the same thing: information. Exelon Nuclear’s Jack
Skolds says he doesn’t know where or how or even if they should
increase security further.


“So, whether we have enough or not, I can’t answer because
we haven’t reached a conclusion yet on what the perceived threat is.”


Recent studies by the National Research Council, the Electric Power
Research Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission all look at perceived threats, especially the
threat of a jet crash into the reactor containment building. The studies
only look at what kind of damage such a crash would likely cause. They
agree it would cause a lot of disruption, but probably would not cause a
melt down. But none of the studies looks at what to do to stop an air
attack.


David Lochbaum at the Union of Concerned Scientists says that’s the
problem. Study and planning to defend against a terrorist attack are
just going too slowly.


“Things aren’t looking real good that we’re going to be able to beat the
next terrorist attack. We’re still trying to figure out where the lines are
drawn, who does what, who pays for the problems. We haven’t responded
with a lot of urgency to this challenge.”


Given that the worst case scenario in the back of every expert’s mind is
something like the Chernobyl plant radioactive release. A similar
release from a nuclear power plant such as Exelon’s Braidwood plant,
just 50 miles from Chicago is haunting. Lochbaum says it’s clear that
the challenge of securing nuclear power plants from a terrorist attack
is significant and should be urgent. But the studies take time… and it
could be one to three years before defense plans are outlined.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Epa Wavers Over Online Information

  • Some federal agencies and laboratories have restricted access to information. The government fears terrorists could use some information to plan attacks against the U.S.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the federal government has been re-thinking its website policies. Anything that the government feels could be used by terrorists was removed from the Internet. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely shut down its website for a time and little of it has been restored. The Army Corps of Engineers removed information about dams across the U-S from its sites. Similarly, some information about natural gas pipelines, and transportation systems was removed. The Environmental Protection Agency removed information about hazardous chemicals. Now, the E-P-A is considering putting back some information about the risks communities face because of nearby industrial plants. But some industry groups were glad to see the information removed and don’t want it put back on the internet. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the federal government has been re-thinking its website policies. Anything that the government feels could be used by terrorists was removed from the internet. For example. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely shut down its website for a time and little of it has been restored. The Army Corps of Engineers removed information about dams across the U.S. from its sites. Similarly, some information about natural gas pipelines, and transportation systems was removed. The Environmental Protection Agency removed information about hazardous chemicals. Now, the EPA is considering putting back some information about the risks communities face because of nearby industrial plants. But, some industry groups were glad to see the information removed and don’t want it put back on the internet. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


In the last decade or so, the government has put volumes and volumes of information on the internet. In the interest of an open and free government, federal agencies have given the public access to all kinds of data. But after the terrorist attacks, there was a scramble to remove a lot of that data. Some government agencies concede they might have overreacted when pulling information off the web. But, most indicate they thought it was better to be safe than to leave information on the internet that terrorists could use to more effectively plan an attack.


For example, the Environmental Protection Agency removed Risk Management Plans from the EPA website. Those plans give details about certain hazardous chemicals that are kept at industrial plants, how a chemical leak or fire at a plant would affect the surrounding community. and even how many people might be hurt or killed in a worse case scenario.


The EPA Administrator, Christie Whitman recently explained to journalists why she had the agency remove those plans.


“That was information on our website that really gave terrorists a road map as to how to where to plan an attack. I was just not sure that we wanted to have that up for any –not so much terrorists, but terrorist wannabe— to find and to take advantage of.”


The information was originally put together in EPA office reading rooms open to the public. Later it was put up on the EPA’s website. That was so community groups could more easily learn about the risks they faced from nearby chemical plants. It was also used by some neighborhood groups to pressure companies to either implement better safety measures or stop using certain chemicals.


Administrator Whitman says in the weeks since the attacks, the EPA has been reviewing whether some of that information can be restored to the internet.


“What we’re doing is reviewing and seeing if it is readily available elsewhere, then there’s no point in our taking it off. We’d put it back again.”


But many chemical companies and other industry groups don’t want that information put back on the government’s websites, even though it’s sometimes still available elsewhere on the internet. In fact, they don’t want the information available to the public at all.


Angela Logomasini is with the Washington-based libertarian think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. She says the information, such as worse case scenarios, shouldn’t be available because it might be used by terrorists. Logomasini was surprised to learn the EPA Administrator is considering putting the information back on the internet.


“I think it’s ridiculous. I think what they should be doing is trying to investigate, you know, what the risks are and whether this is really a wise thing to do. You know, just simply because other groups have taken the information and posted some of it on the internet does not mean that our government should go out of its way and provide it too.”


Logomasini says the risk management plans are of little use to the public anyway. She says the only people who used them were environmentalists, who wanted the information to scare people.


There’s some skepticism about the chemical industry’s real motivation to keep the information out of public view. Besides environmentalists. Some journalists use the information to track industry safety and government regulations.


Margaret Kriz is a correspondent for the National Journal where she writes about government, industry and the environment. She says since September 11th, chemical industry people might be arguing that the risk management plans should be kept secret for national security reasons. But before then, their reasons had more to do with corporate public relations and competition.


“Some of the information that was taken off the web by EPA the day of the attack is information the chemical industry has been trying to get off the web for years. They have not wanted it on there because they really don’t want to have— they fear two things: they fear the public will overreact to the information if they find out (about) some chemicals in a nearby plant and the second thing, they’re fearful if a competitor for them will go look at this information and find out what chemicals are being used and figure out what their secret formula is for whatever they make.”


So, it appears to at least some observers that the chemical industry sees the concern over terrorism as an opportunity. an opportunity to get the internet-based information removed for good. But it looks as though the Environmental Protection Agency is leaning toward making some of the information available on the website again. However. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman didn’t say when. Other agencies are also reviewing the information they’ve removed from the web with an eye toward eventually making some version of the data available to the public once again on the internet.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links