NRC's initial assurances at beginning of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear emergency prove false

In a March 13, 2011 media release, issued just two days after the beginning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe in Japan, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated:

"During a nuclear event the NRC has requirements to protect populations around reactors. For instance, the U.S. evacuation standard at 10 miles is roughly equivalent to the 20-kilometer distance recommended in Japan. The United States also uses sheltering in place and potassium iodide, protective measures also available in Japan. United States citizens in Japan are encouraged to follow the protective measures recommended by the Japanese government. These measures appear to be consistent with steps the United States would take."

First, 20 km is 12.4 miles, meaning Japan's evacuation zones are nearly 25% larger than the U.S.'s. Ironically, shortly after NRC's media statement, NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko invoked emergency powers to circumvent resistance by other NRC Commissioners so that he could issue a warning to all Americans in Japan to evacuate at least 50 miles (80.5 km) away from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Second, regarding sheltering in place, NRC has long been considering shrinking American evacuation zones to 2 miles, and instructing persons living within 2 to 8 miles of a nuclear accident to merely "shelter in place." In Japan, the initial evacuation orders applied only to a 3 km (about 2 mi) radius, which within hours had to be expanded to 20 km (12.4 mi). In certain directions such as to the northwest, where wind and precipitation made Fukushima fallout severe, the evacuation zone had to be dramatically expanded. Many critics warn that the 12.4 mile evacuation radius around Fukushima Daiichi is dangerously small.

Third, NRC has dragged its heels on enforcing a federal law requiring pre-deployed potassium iodide distribution out to 20 miles downwind of U.S. reactors in order to prepare for radioactivity releases ahead of time. NRC simply refuses to carry out the legal mandate. But then again, NRC resisted previous efforts to require potassium iodide pre-deployment. An NRC staffer named Peter Crane, himself a survivor of thyroid cancer, endeavored for many years on end to officially petition the NRC to take this basic health-protection action.

Finally, it was ironic for the NRC to instruct Americans in Japan to follow Japanese government instructions. As mentioned above, NRC Chairman Jaczko quickly saw the need to warn Americans to evacuate 50 miles away, not just 12.4 miles away as the Japanese government said.

Internal NRC contradictions in initial response to Fukushima Nuclear Crisis

As the first anniversary of the beginning of the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe approaches on March 11, 2012, it is instructive to look back at the internal contradictions of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's initial reesponse to the crisis.

On March 13, 2011, NRC issued a media release entitled "NRC SEES NO RADIATION AT HARMFUL LEVELS REACHING U.S. FROM DAMAGED JAPANESE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS." In it, the NRC stated:

"Given the thousands of miles between the two countries, Hawaii, Alaska, the U.S. Territories and the U.S. West Coast are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radioactivity."

However, the Washington Post reported on Feb. 6, 2012 that at the very same time, a worst-case NRC analysis actually indicated that radioactive Iodine-131 fallout from Fukushima could reach levels hazardous to human thyroids in Alaska:

'While assuring Americans publicly that there was no danger, the NRC did not disclose one worst-case scenario, which did not rule out the possibility of radiation exceeding safe levels for thyroid doses in Alaska, the e-mails show. “Because things were uncertain, we considered it but the data that was available . . . did not support that very pessimistic scenario so no, it was not discussed publicly at that point,” NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said.' 

NRC refuses CNN an interview on Vermont Yankee risks

Vermont Yankee's cooling tower collapse due to "sloppy maintenance" was unprecedentedCNN's Amber Lyon has reported on "Concerns over aging nuclear plants," particularly at Entergy's Vermont Yankee reactor, a General Electric Boiling Water Reactor of the Mark I design just like Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4. Despite adamant opposition by the State of Vermont to the reactor's 20 year license extension, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rubberstamped it anyway, just days after the beginning of the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe. Despite its claims of openness, transparency, and accountability, NRC's Director of the Office of Public Affairs, Elliot Brenner (who previously worked as Dick Cheney's director of communications in the Vice President's Office) refused to grant CNN an interview, despite six weeks of requests. Entergy Nuclear's CEO, J. Wayne Leonard, also turned down CNN's request for an interview. Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates is interviewed on Vermont Yankee's long list of accidents and incidents stemming from "sloppy maintenance," including an unprecedented cooling tower collapse.

CNN's Matt Smith has also reported on safety concerns with GE BWR Mark Is that date back over 40 years. The article reports on Beyond Nuclear's "Freeze Our Fukushimas" 10CFR2.206 emergency enforcement petition to the NRC, which 8,000 co-petitioners, including Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds, have endorsed:

"In an October [2011] hearing before the NRC's Petition Review Board, [Gundersen] said the vents were a 'Band-Aid fix' for the design that failed 'not once, not twice, but three times' at Fukushima Daiichi.

'True wisdom means knowing when to modify something and knowing when to stop,' said Gundersen, who leads a state commission set up to monitor the Vermont Yankee plant.

The NRC has rejected a petition by anti-nuclear groups to immediately shut down all reactors using the GE Mark I containment. But it said it would examine several of the issues the petitioners raised as part of its review of the Japanese disaster."

Update on February 21, 2012 by admin

In Part 2 of "Nuclear Standoff" on CNN, Amber Lyon takes a closer look at the State of Vermont's showdown with Entergy Nuclear over the fate of the Vermont Yankee atomic reactor -- the resolution of which could set a precedent for aging atomic reactors nationwide, she reports.

Entergy Nuclear infamous for "buying reactors cheap, then running them into the ground"

The Kalamazoo Gazette has quoted Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps responding to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's downgrading of the Palisades nuclear power plant's safety status as one of the worst in the country. The call has gone out from grassroots Vermont Yankee watchdogs for the formation of an "Entergy Watch," to monitor reactor risks at the second biggest corporate nuclear power fleet across the U.S., which includes the following dozen atomic reactors at 10 different nuclear power plants: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2; Cooper Nuclear Station in Nebraska; FitzPatrick in upstate New York; Grand Gulf in Mississippi; Indian Point Units 2 and 3 near New York City; Palisades in Michigan; Pilgrim near Boston; Riverbend in Louisiana;Vermont Yankee; and Waterford in Louisiana. Of these, Cooper, FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee are General Electric Mark I Boiling Water Reactors (GE BWR Mark Is), identical in design to Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4, the focus of Beyond Nuclear's "Freeze Our Fukushimas" shutdown campaign.

Beyond Nuclear responds to NRC safety downgrade at Palisades: "shut it down before it melts down"

Don't Waste Michigan has long called for Palisades' shut down. Here, DWM board members Michael Keegan, Alice Hirt, and Kevin Kamps speak out at Palisades during the August 2000 Nuclear-Free Great Lakes Action CampIn response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) media release, "NRC CITES PALISADES FOR THREE VIOLATIONS; PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULED," Beyond Nuclear has issued a media release of its own.

It begins: "While we welcome the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's long overdue acknowledgement that safety risks are unacceptable at Palisades, and the agency's plans for enhanced inspections, we know all too well that not only the reactor's owner, Entergy Nuclear, but even the regulatory agency itself, needs to be watched at every turn, to keep them honest. The grassroots environmental movement of the Great Lakes will do all it can to shine a spotlight on the grave risks at Palisades. Too much is at stake: Lake Michigan, headwaters of the drinking water supply for 40 million people downstream."

Read the full Beyond Nuclear media statement here. Palisades is located on the Lake Michigan shoreline, as shown by its steam rising next to the lake in the photo above. The united environmental movement of Michigan, and beyond, opposed Palisades' 20 year license extension, but NRC rubberstamped it anyway.