Winehole23
04-14-2011, 12:28 AM
U.S. Nuclear Regulator Lets Industry Write Rules
by John Sullivan, Special to ProPublica April 13, 2011, 8:06 p.m.
http://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_image_lead_ngen/David_Besse_NPP-300.jpg Ohio’s Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station (US NRC)
In the fall of 2001, inspectors with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were so concerned about possible corrosion at Ohio’s Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station (http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/davi.html) [1] that they prepared an emergency order to shut it down for inspection. But, according to a report (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/2003/02-03s.pdf) [2] from the NRC inspector general, senior officials at the agency held off – in part because they did not want to hurt the plant’s bottom line.
When workers finally checked the reactor in February of 2002, they made an astonishing finding: Corrosive fluid from overhead pipes had eaten a football-sized hole in the reactor vessel’s steel side. The only thing preventing a leak of radioactive coolant was a pencil-thin layer of stainless steel.
The Davis Besse incident has resurfaced in the wake of the ongoing nuclear crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant. Stories recounting close ties (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/japan-nuclear-power-scandals_n_836970.html) [3] between Japanese nuclear regulators and utilities there have reinvigorated critics who say the NRC has not been an aggressive enough U.S. watchdog.
The NRC says that is not the case, and commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko defended the agency’s independence and professionalism. “I have a great staff who are dedicated to public health and safety, and people who interact with this agency, they know that and they see that,” he said in an interview.
Critics of the NRC say the problem at Davis Besse, 20 miles southeast of Toledo, is a prime example of the agency’s deference to industry. The inspector general concluded that a conflict between the NRC’s twin goals of inspecting the plant to protect public safety and a desire to “reduce unnecessary regulatory burden” on the owner led to the delay in finding the gaping hole.
In 2003, then NRC’s Chairman Richard Meserve disputed the inspector general’s report (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/congress-docs/correspondence/2003/davis-besse.pdf) [4], which found that the agency’s decision on Davis Besse “was driven in large part by a desire to lessen the financial impact” the plant’s owner. Meserve said the NRC had adequate technical grounds for the delay...
...In a 1974 overhaul (http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/history.html) [11], development of nuclear energy was transferred elsewhere and protection of the public was given to the NRC, a five-member body whose members are appointed by the president.
Riccio asserted that over the years, NRC has become more accommodating to the industry.
“The problem with inviting the industry in is that they tend to dominate the process,” he said. “The NRC has a problem distinguishing between the public they serve and the industry they regulate. “
http://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-nuclear-regulator-lets-industry-write-rules
by John Sullivan, Special to ProPublica April 13, 2011, 8:06 p.m.
http://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_image_lead_ngen/David_Besse_NPP-300.jpg Ohio’s Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station (US NRC)
In the fall of 2001, inspectors with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were so concerned about possible corrosion at Ohio’s Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station (http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/davi.html) [1] that they prepared an emergency order to shut it down for inspection. But, according to a report (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/2003/02-03s.pdf) [2] from the NRC inspector general, senior officials at the agency held off – in part because they did not want to hurt the plant’s bottom line.
When workers finally checked the reactor in February of 2002, they made an astonishing finding: Corrosive fluid from overhead pipes had eaten a football-sized hole in the reactor vessel’s steel side. The only thing preventing a leak of radioactive coolant was a pencil-thin layer of stainless steel.
The Davis Besse incident has resurfaced in the wake of the ongoing nuclear crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant. Stories recounting close ties (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/japan-nuclear-power-scandals_n_836970.html) [3] between Japanese nuclear regulators and utilities there have reinvigorated critics who say the NRC has not been an aggressive enough U.S. watchdog.
The NRC says that is not the case, and commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko defended the agency’s independence and professionalism. “I have a great staff who are dedicated to public health and safety, and people who interact with this agency, they know that and they see that,” he said in an interview.
Critics of the NRC say the problem at Davis Besse, 20 miles southeast of Toledo, is a prime example of the agency’s deference to industry. The inspector general concluded that a conflict between the NRC’s twin goals of inspecting the plant to protect public safety and a desire to “reduce unnecessary regulatory burden” on the owner led to the delay in finding the gaping hole.
In 2003, then NRC’s Chairman Richard Meserve disputed the inspector general’s report (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/congress-docs/correspondence/2003/davis-besse.pdf) [4], which found that the agency’s decision on Davis Besse “was driven in large part by a desire to lessen the financial impact” the plant’s owner. Meserve said the NRC had adequate technical grounds for the delay...
...In a 1974 overhaul (http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/history.html) [11], development of nuclear energy was transferred elsewhere and protection of the public was given to the NRC, a five-member body whose members are appointed by the president.
Riccio asserted that over the years, NRC has become more accommodating to the industry.
“The problem with inviting the industry in is that they tend to dominate the process,” he said. “The NRC has a problem distinguishing between the public they serve and the industry they regulate. “
http://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-nuclear-regulator-lets-industry-write-rules