When I blog about problems with nuclear power, I often mention regulation. Theoretically, regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are supposed to license and monitor the activity of nuclear power plants in their nations with special emphasis on insuring that power plants follow regulations to protect the health of the citizens and the environment. Too often, regulatory agencies fall under the influence of the nuclear industry in what is called regulatory capture. In such cases, the agencies often fail in their primary mission to act as a counter to the naked pursuit of profits being carried out by the owners of the power plants.
The Better Government Association has just issued a report based on their investigation of almost seven hundred complaints for plant workers and NRC experts about the response of the NRC to reports of problems at nuclear power plants. From 2010 through 2016, nuclear power plant workers filed six hundred and eighty-seven complaints. The NRC investigated only two-hundred and thirty-five complaints, and they upheld none of the complaints they did investigate.
The BGA report says that the NRC often dismisses or minimizes reported problems at U.S. nuclear power plants. In some cases, the complaints are about situations that could result in disaster. The complaints about NRC responses claimed retaliation from power plant owners against employees who reported problems. The NRC claimed that there was no wrongdoing with regard to any of the hundreds of complaints.
NRC experts routinely disregarded and overruled recommendations of their own technical experts on protecting nuclear power plants from serious problems including potential catastrophes caused by floods, equipment failures, power outages and other issues. More than twenty current and former nuclear power plant and NRC employees were interviewed by the BGA. These interviews showed a clear pattern of top NRC officials dismissing safety warnings rather than finding nuclear power plants in violation of regulations and imposing serious fines. In some cases, the careers of those reporting problems were seriously damaged.
Lawrence Criscione, an NRC risk analyst said, “It’s the NRC’s longstanding practice to consistently declare the plants are safe and to avoid directly answering any questions that might suggest otherwise.” The NRC would not allow an interview but did respond in writing to the BGA questions. NRC spokeswoman Viktoria Mitlyng wrote that “All U.S. nuclear power plants have multiple appropriate procedures and resources in place to maintain key safety functions if severe events occur.” “These conclusions are based on extensive agency reviews and inspections.”
The NRC has its own internal surveys that reveal a “climate of fear” among its employees. Most employees polled said that “if you disagree with your manager it can, and most likely will, affect your career path and advancement.”
A major problem with the NRC is that their final rulings often are not based on the warnings from its experts. Richard Perkins, a former staff member of the NRC said, “Management tells you where they want the answer to go. If you push, you’re not going to get promoted again — there are other people who are willing to say it’s not a serious issue.”
What ever can be said about the benefits of nuclear power, if the NRC cannot do their job of monitoring nuclear power plants operators and holding them responsible for problems at their facilities, then the risk of potential disasters from nuclear accidents at power plants renders nuclear power unacceptable.
