Is the Government’s Nuclear Regulator Up to the Job?

Japan’s nuclear crisis turns the spotlight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s spotty record.

Zuma/Armin Weigel

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The day before the earthquake and tsunami that sparked Japan’s escalating nuclear crisis, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 20-year license extension for Entergy’s Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, Vermont. The plant uses the same GE Mark 1 reactor design as Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has revived questions about the safety of America’s existing nuclear infrastructure—and the efficacy of the nation’s top nuclear regulator.

The NRC approved Entergy’s license despite the fact that Vermont’s legislature voted by an overwhelming majority last February to reject an extension for the 39-year-old plant. Among a number of safety concerns, the plant had been found to be leaking radioactive materials via a network of underground pipes—pipes that an Entergy executive had initially testified under oath didn’t exist.

Vermont State Representative Tony Klein (D), chair of House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, recalls that when he asked NRC representatives about the pipes at a hearing two years ago, the officials were unaware of them—let alone the fact that they were leaking. “How the hell can you regulate something when you don’t know it even exists?” Klein asks. “I don’t have much faith in them at all, and I don’t think the rest of the country should either.”

 

The future of the Vermont plant is still in question; Entergy is pushing for a new vote in the state legislature that would reverse last year’s decision. It is seeking, says Entergy spokesman Alex Schott, “constructive resolution of our issues with the State of Vermont.” He adds that the NRC decision “confirms that Vermont Yankee is a safe and reliable nuclear plant.” If the company doesn’t succeed in changing the state’s decision, there’s a strong chance this matter will end up in court, with Entergy arguing that NRC’s approval should preempt Vermont’s decision.

Nuclear watchdogs point to the Vermont situation as evidence that the NRC is providing lackluster oversight, and isn’t even evaluating the safety of such plants before issuing new licenses. “Every single reactor that has asked for a license has been given one from the NRC,” says Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace USA. “It’s not a standard, it’s a rubber stamp.”

There are 104 nuclear reactors currently operating in the US, all of which were granted initial licenses for 40 years. The NRC has approved renewals for 63 of those plants, and is currently considering extensions for 12 more. Every plant has gotten the green light, nuclear watchdogs say, because of NRC rule changes in the early 1990s that limited the factors regulators evaluate when considering a relicensing application. The current process, they say, fails to take into consideration a number of concerns about whether the infrastructure is still secure and whether the plants are sufficiently updated for modern threats.

It’s not just nuclear critics who find the NRC’s review process lacking. The commission’s inspector general has expressed similar concerns, concluding in a September 2007 report that the NRC’s staff “does not consistently provide adequate descriptions of audit methodology or support for conclusions in license renewal reports.” The NRC did not respond to requests for comment.

Paul Gunter, of the advocacy group Beyond Nuclear, points to another Mark 1 reactor in New Jersey, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, that was relicensed by the NRC despite evidence of corrosion in the plant’s steel containment structure. Just a few days after the commission approved its license, the plant’s owner divulged that, like Vermont’s plant, it was leaking radioactive material from an underground pipe.

The nuclear industry says it’s too soon to tell how much Japan’s crisis could impact nuclear relicensing in the US. At the very least, says Carl Baab, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s lead lobbying group, it will subject plants that are currently in the process to additional federal scrutiny.

In Vermont, Japan’s nuclear disaster has reaffirmed existing worries about nuclear safety. Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D), an outspoken opponent of the Yankee plant, says he hopes the situation in Japan will prompt a closer examination of the nation’s nuclear infrastructure—and perhaps encourage other states to block the relicensing of plants. “We have 104 aging nuclear power plants in America,” Shumlin tells Mother Jones. “I hope that events in Japan might lead us to reexamine our irrational exuberance that we can run them 20 years past their design life.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate