Lawsuit filed against AP1000 reactor design certification and NRC's approval of Vogtle 3 & 4 COLA

A lawsuit filed by attorneys Diane Curran of Washington, D.C., Mindy Goldstein of Turner Environmental Law Clinic at Emory University in Atlanta, and John Runkle of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, challenges the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) approval of the Toshiba-Westinghouse "Advanced Passive" (AP) 1000 reactor design on Dec. 30, 2011, as well as the Feb. 9-10 NRC approval of the Vogtle nuclear power plants Units 3 and 4 combined construction and operating license application (COLA). The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an environmental coalition including: Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League; Center for a Sustainable Coast; and Georgia Women's Action for New Directions. Those environmental petitioners are joined by co-petitioners from the "AP1000 Oversight Group": North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network; Citizens Allied for Safe Energy; Friends of the Earth; Nuclear Information and Resource Service; and Nuclear Watch South (nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates has served as an expert witness for the AP1000 Oversight Group). Dr. Arjun Makhijani of Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) serves as the environmental coalition's expert witness on this lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the NRC's failure to apply lessons learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe before approving the AP1000 reactor design, as well as the Vogtle 3 and 4 COLA, is a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as additional laws and regulations. The plaintiffs cite the dissenting opinion written by NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko in the 4-1 split NRC Commissioners decision to approve the Vogtle 3 and 4 COLA. 

The AP has reported on this story.

Beyond Nuclear and its environmental coalition allies have filed identical legal challenges against the Seabrook nuclear power plant's license extension in New Hampshire, the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant's license extension in Ohio, and the Fermi 3 atomic reactor's COLA in Michigan. However, those proceedings have not yet reached the stage that the Vogtle 3 and 4 proceeding has -- final approvals by NRC, now timely for legal action in federal court.

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.