Unholy Alliance: Governments and the nuclear industry

Emails leaked a few days ago show the British government was more concerned with controlling bad public relations for the nuclear industry following the Fukashima disaster than with the safety of its nuclear power plants.  The government had already committed to building several more nuclear plants and wanted to blunt any opposition.

This morning an explosion and fire was reported at a French nuclear plant. Government officials confirmed there was a minor fire, but made no mention of the explosion, and insisted there was no threat to the public. Local officials were taking no chances. Swimming and fishing were banned from the area near the plant.

The plant near Drome is one of France’s oldest, and was recently given a 10-year license extension, even though 32 safety concerns were revealed last week. Ignoring public concern over nuclear power, President Sarkozy last week pledged an additional $1.5 billion for nuclear power development.

In Vermont, legislators concerned about the conditions at the aging Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, Vt., have voted not to approve a 20-year extension of the plant’s operating license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has teamed up with Entergy Corp., the plant’s owner, in a lawsuit against the state’s action. An Entergy lawyer last week argued in federal court, in part, that the state has no business being concerned with the safety of its citizens, only whether or not the plant can deliver “reliable” power.

Apparently they have a problem with democracy as well. They further argued that when these elected representatives voted against the license extension, they were reacting to the wishes of their constituency.

Two months after the nuclear disaster began at Fukashima (it’s still going on you just don’t hear about it) the nuclear plant operators and the Japanese government had to admit they had been lying about the seriousness of the disaster of the plant.

Regardless of the pros and cons of nuclear power, how can an honest discussion of the issue take place in an atmosphere of lies and cover-ups?

Mass. Joins the fight against Entergy & Vt. Yankee

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a brief defending Vermont’s right to determine the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

The plant is located within walking distance of the Massachusetts border and has a history of mishaps, most recently a steady stream of leaking radiated water which the plant’s owners seem unable to locate and stop. An investigation into the source of the leaks determined the problems date back to shoddy workmanship when the plant was first built 40 years ago.

Nevertheless, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 20-year extension to the plant’s operating license. The current license expires next March, and the plant’ owner’s Entergy Corp., headquartered in Louisiana, has put it up for sale, has tried to negotiate a merger with an Ohio power company, so ar to no avail.

NRC approval notwithstanding, Vermont has the last say in whether or not the plant can continue to operate. The legislature has already voted to not approve an extension. The matter can still come up in the legislature’s next session.

Entergy agreed to abide by the state’s decision when it bought the plant several years ago. Now, faced with the prospect of a shutdown and an expensive de-commissioning process, the company has changed its tune. It has filed a challenge in federal district court, claiming the state has no such jurisdiction. Entergy is claiming federal law gives the NRC the sole power of approval.

Atty. General Coakley disagrees, saying there is nothing in the Atomic Energy Act that takes away a state’s right to regulate nuclear power within its borders.

Entergy also owns the Pilgrim Nuclear power plant in Plymouth, Mass.,and it too is in the process of seeking a license renewal. It, too, has had its share of troubles, including a recent emergency shutdown that was only explained away as “employee error.”

The license enewal process has been put on hold until these and other issues have been addressed.

U.S. Nuke plants to enter digital age – soon

Just when I thought the U.S. nuclear industry couldn’t get more pathetically ridiculous than it already is, a news item today proudly announces that a nuclear reactor in South Carolina will become the first in the country to have digital controls installed on its safety and operating equipment.

Think about it.

The technology they’ve been using to ensure the safety of everyone around them is no more advanced than your grandfather’s wind-up alarm clock and slide rule.

Pilgrim Nuclear goes on “unplanned” shutdown

As long as we’re on the subject of safety, the Pilgrim Yankee Nuclear power plant in Plymouth suddenly shut down two weeks ago. The company would only say it was “operator error,” but couldn’t say how long it would stay shutdown. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, meanwhile, said its sending a special investigative team to find out what happened, something that they’ve done only a handful of times before.

Seabrook concrete weakened by water seepage

Just up the coast from Plymouth is the Seabrook Nuclear plant in Seabrook, NH. A report issued last week found that groundwater was undermining the concrete housing of the cables that run the plant’s safety system. Leakage into the tunnels could short circuit the safety system. This was first discovered sometime last year, but not publicized until last week. No sense rushing things. The NRC is happy to report no danger to the public.

It might be useful to remember it wasn’t the earthquake that caused the meltdown at Fukashima, but water from the tsunami that short-circuited the backup safety system.

Japan’s meltdown prompts much-needed scrutiny

Sadly, it took a major tragedy get governments and the media to take a critical look at the pros and cons of nuclear power and the corruption of the nuclear industry and their cronies in government regulation.

Can nuclear power ever be safe? I don’t know. If it can be, would it be better to build smaller, more localized reactors, rather than the sprawling complexes we now see? Instead of watching one reactor after another explode and meltdown while all we can do is stand helplessly by, wouldn’t any accident be smaller and therefore more containable?

If not, then nuclear power becomes a dangerous and expensive way to boil water.

The media is finally - though not universally – wandering off the party line that had come to accept nuclear energy as the power source of the future. Clean. Safe. Reliable. It’s all over the industry literature.

Then there’s the unhealthy alliance between regulators and the industry. From the beginning, there were members of the scientific community who had serious reservations about the type of reactors that we see both in Japan and here in the US. They were concerned about just the type of problems we’ve been seeing all week.

But GE, the company that designed and sold the reactors told the NRC they didn’t want any interference, and so the NRC ignored the warnings. And here we are.

This is the same GE that polluted the Housatonic and is now dragging it feet on cleaning it up. The same civic-minded GE that donated carcinogen-laced soil for Pittsfield’s playgrounds. The same GE that insists it should get a contract to build jet engines for fighter planes that will never be used – those are being built by another company. This is the same GE that has profited handsomely from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is the same GE that owns NBC news.

Nuclear apologists in full-court press downplaying Japan disaster

To hear the nuclear industry’s lackeys describe it, the ongoing disaster in Japan is not much more than an inconvenience.

Let’s start with our friends at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Their position is, as always, “no threat to the public safety, no need to worry.” And of course, there’s the ever-popular “it can’t happen here,” line of argument, because our nuclear power plants are so much better. Just take a look at Vermont Yankee – it’s been leaking radioactive tritium for more than a year, and a cooling tower collapsed for no other reason than it was badly built.

Their position is contradicted by the facts. First, U.S. Navy ships heading to Japan changed course when their instruments detected high levels of radiation in the air. The explanation? Their instruments were too sensitive.

Then there was Callie Crossley, Boston media commentator, appearing on CNN, objecting to the use of the word “meltdown” when all the reactor did was explode. She said she felt much better that it wasn’t actually melting down. Now officials are referring to a “partial” meltdown, whatever that might be.

And then there was an NBC correspondent this evening whose story was that the quake/tsunami victims had more the worry about than a little radiation.

All these reports, and plenty of others, seem to be designed to lull the public into thinking that we should plunge on with more nuclear plants. Where are the calls to re-think this idea?