Feds Cut Nuclear Emergency Exercises, Avoid Public Scrutiny

Author: 4 Comments Share:

Not since the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina has the US federal government so callously ignored disaster red flags. Disregarding lessons of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, the Nuclear Regulatory Administration (NRC) secretively issued a new rule that decreases the frequency of emergency exercises and requires the use of exercise scenarios with no release of radiation, the Associated Press (AP) article reported Tuesday. The new rule will be implemented jointly by the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The US government conducts two kinds of radiological emergency exercises assessing the state of preparedness. “Plume phase” exercises, conducted every two years, test readiness to respond in the early stages of a radiological emergency, for example to coordinate lifesaving activities like evacuation and sheltering. Recovery phase exercises, typically called “ingestion pathway” exercises, test readiness to protect the food supply, clean up the environment, relocate residents, and aid economic recovery.

The Japanese government’s unpreparedness to carry out those responsibilities needlessly exposed consumers to radiation, ballooned costs, ruined farmers, traumatized residents and stunted recovery.  The chances that it could happen here in the US have increased as a result of the NRC’s new rule.

In May 2009, the NRC published a draft rule (NRC-2008-0122), titled “Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations,” that described proposed changes and solicited public comment. After the public comment period ending October 19, 2009, NRC commissioners reviewed the draft rule on January 14, 2011.  None of those who reviewed the proposed changes had the benefit of knowing how the March 2011 disaster in Japan played out, challenging previous assumptions.

For public safety’s sake, the NRC should have started the process over again, providing a post-Fukushima opportunity for review and comment.  Instead, it forged ahead with the Final Rule, publishing it in the Federal Register on November 23, 2011—the day before Thanksgiving—when Congress would be out of town and news desks would be lightly staffed. By making the rule effective December 23, on the threshold of Christmas, the NRC ensured that the rule would again receive little notice when published in the Federal Register.

Apparently, the NRC considered the event too mundane to issue a news release, unlike weightier events publicized in releases titled, “NRC Goes Live on Youtube,” and “Follow NRC on Twitter.”

An NRC webpage dated March 29, 2012, describes the rulemaking history but provides only this vague description of the rule: “The rule changes would strengthen nuclear power plant emergency preparedness by enhancing response to hostile action events and by updating certain requirements, including those related to public alert and notification systems and evacuation planning.”

The rule describes impacts on licensees (utilities), but affects state and local governments as well according to FEMA officials interviewed by the AP.  FEMA manages exercises testing offsite preparedness as described in the Code of Federal Regulations, 44 CFR 350.  Some of the changes appear beneficial, particularly for utilities, but others undermine the efforts of state and local governments to derive benefits from an exercise process that already had problems.

Until the NRC issued the new rule, recovery exercises were conducted every six years.  That was problematic because, in less time, many plans would have been revised, personnel would have changed, and organizations would have restructured.  That made it likely that the first time a responder implemented a radiological emergency plan—which could take up an entire shelf—would be when a real event occurred.  Infrequent exercises thus negate their primary benefit, which is to discover plan implementation flaws when lives are not on the line.

Incredibly, the NRC has now widened the exercise interval, allowing recovery exercises to be conducted every eight years.  In that case, they might as well make the interval once a century because the benefit to public safety could not be smaller.

Federal officials are dismissive of the impacts of the changes on state and local governments. The Associated Press reports, “Pressed on the reduced frequency of 50-mile [ingestion pathway] exercises, federal planners said community personnel can practice skills as often as they like, without needing a full-blown federal evaluation each time.”

For a couple of reasons, that claim is absurd. First, federal evaluations are necessary because federal agencies possess expertise that is scarce or nonexistent at the state and local level.

Continued on Page 2…

[adsense]

Previous Article

Japan panel investigating unanswered questions surrounding the Fukushima disaster

Next Article

May 17th, 2012 FOIA Archive Release – RASCAL Estimations – SPEEDI Data – Communications – Status Updates

4 Comments

  1. Why are these things being done in SECRET?

    Disaster planning is already a JOKE and things like this are only adding slapstick to the exercise and they are a huge waste of money…

    There is a solution and it is called civilian oversight; something that the Professionals want to avoid at all costs because “outsiders” ask too many smart questions that they cannot answer!

    Example, SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) had a radiation release and the closest Elementary school had N☢ Evacuation Plan and there are N☢ buses to move the children!

    This is reality, something these “Planners” want to avoid because it makes their “PLANS” look ridiculous!

  2. Thank you for your comment, CaptD.

    When the government tries so hard to keep something secret, you can be sure there’s a reason and it’s not pretty.

    Citizen oversight is an excellent idea. Unfortunately, even state and local preparedness officials have been blindsided at times by their federal “partners.”

  3. THX Yes and we will continue to see much more “Monkey Business” as Utilities use every trick in the book to try and circumvent the NRC and their own safety minded employees to make a buck at any RISK to local residents because they know in the end the rate payers will be forced to pay…

    A great example in in Southern California where all problems caused by the Utility are just “rubber stamped” by the CPUC (The Review Board)…

    Another looming issue is the huge de-commissioning costs that have been “lowballed” by the NRC; which will be yet another giant “NEW” few that rate payers must shell out for!

    N.R.C. Skimps on Financial Oversight, GAO Audit Says
    snip
    The government does a poor job of estimating what it will cost to tear down a nuclear reactor, Congressional auditors say, and it may not be overseeing plant owners well enough to assure that they set aside enough money to do the job.
    For a study it plans to issue on Monday, the Government Accountability Office scrutinized 12 of the nation’s 104 power reactors and found that for 5 of them, the decommissioning cost calculated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was 76 percent or less of what the reactor’s owner thought would be needed.
    The most striking example was Indian Point 3 in Buchanan, N.Y., which could be forced to close by 2015 because of a licensing dispute . The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimated the cost of decommissioning the reactor at $474.2 million, just 57 percent of the “site-specific” estimate made by Entergy, the owner, which put the figure at $836.45 million.

Leave a Reply