ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chief Blasts Agency’s Approach to Fire Safety

N.R.C. Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko said the agency is giving nuclear companies too much leeway and “must close this very long chapter of not enforcing all fire protection violations.”

In a forceful critique of his agency’s approach toward fire safety, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission declared that the policy of not enforcing most fire code violations at dozens of nuclear plants is “unacceptable” and has tied the hands of NRC inspectors.

The written comments by NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko, released last week, were made as the commission voted in late May to continue a policy of citing only the most serious fire violations at 44 of the nation’s 101 reactors that are in the process of updating fire plans, and to address old hazards.

As ProPublica recently reported, many of the plants are relying on fire watches and other short-term measures while they work on their new plans. But critics say the NRC’s enforcement policy has allowed nuclear companies to put off installing fire suppression, barriers and other safety features for years.

Fire is among the most serious risks to nuclear reactors, according to NRC experts. Jaczko said in the written statement explaining his vote that fires can represent as much as 50 percent of a plant’s “core damage frequency”—the likelihood of an accident that affected a reactor’s radioactive fuel.

Jaczko said that the NRC should have been better prepared to review the nuclear companies’ fire plans. Instead, he said the agency had let the process drag on too long.

“The bottom line is that licensees have had years to identify fire protection deficiencies, and the commission must close this very long chapter of not enforcing all fire protection violations,” he wrote.

“But the continued willingness to tie inspectors’ hands by limiting the tools they have available to ensure we meet our mission of protecting public health and safety, is more than disappointing—it is unacceptable.”

The NRC policy, called “enforcement discretion,” started in 2004 as a way to encourage nuclear companies to submit to a new fire regulation that’s an alternative to the one-size-fits-all fire code.

Under the alternate regulation, companies can customize fire protection to better fit unique issues at their reactors. NRC hopes that plants enrolled in the program will have approved plans within the next several years.

The commission’s vote was on whether to extend enforcement discretion for those plants while companies submit proposed fire plans for NRC review on a staggered schedule beginning June 29.

According to NRC records, there have been at least 154 fires at nuclear plants since 1995, an average of 10 a year. On June 7, a fire at the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska temporarily knocked out cooling to a pool holding spent fuel at the site, prompting an emergency declaration.

In an interview, officials of the nuclear industry’s trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the extended period of enforcement grace was reasonable.

Anthony Pietrangelo, the group’s chief nuclear officer, said it would be counterproductive for the NRC to issue violations for things that the nuclear companies were working to fix.

Mr. Pietrangelo pointed out, as have Jaczko and other NRC officials, that enforcement discretion does not mean that serious hazards in the plants are ignored.

The enforcement discretion policy does not extend to the most serious violations, which the NRC defines as “red.” For less serious deficiencies, nuclear companies also must put in place interim measures, such as stationing a fire watch, that are reviewed by the NRC to ensure the plants are safe.

“If there is a significant safety issue at any of these plants, it would be addressed by the licensee and the regulator—period,” Pietrangelo said.

Jaczko, a former congressional staffer and physicist who President Obama named chairman in 2009, has previously said he opposed extending enforcement discretion, but his May remarks are the most extensive critique of the policy to date.

Once again, the present administration is pushing “upping fire scruitiny,” as if this “bandaid” will improve safety.  Wont happen with the special interest lobby in washington.  The will pay politicians advocates to sidestep regs in the future.  Same game, different day.

William Mullins

June 20, 2011, 5:35 a.m.

Enforcement discretion is an integral feature of every aspect of our judicial system - it serves to promote negotiated solutions to difficult challenges when going to court and pursuing a singular solution seems to be against the best interests of the public.

That this is a political rather than a technical issue can be seen from the illusion to fires representing a 50% contribution to the core damage frequency calculation. The CDF estimate for the operating plants as designed is on the order of one chance in a million or less likely at any given moment of operation. To further reduce the likelihood, there are only so many contributors to potential failure and fire will always be one of them - the 50% item, while a “fact” does not communicate the “truth” this article might lead one to presume.

At the end of the day, the Chairman was outvoted by his peers on the Commission who judged that progress toward improve fire protection was proceeding in an acceptable fashion - these are the judgments they are paid to make. It is not hard for me to conclude that there are better things for NRC Inspectors to spend their time on than writing up as “violations” conditions for improvement that have already been acknowledged by all the parties. Where’s the point?

The “point” would be that corporations that deal with high risk environmental hazards across the globe have shown a marked fixation on profit margins over all concerns including safety. 

The heavy pressure to maximize investment growth and returns needs to be offset by oversight that includes the threat of significant fines and jail time for execs.  Without those, the true cost of doing business in a safe way will always be shirked - it’s a “feature” of capitalism.

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Nuclear Safety

Nuclear Safety

With the disaster in Japan, we're investigating questions about nuclear safety.

The Story So Far

Following a massive earthquake and tsunami in Japan, hydrogen explosions rocked three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Radioactive spent fuel stored in pools was also affected, especially at one reactor—the plant has a total of six—where multiple fires erupted. Evacuation orders were issued, potassium iodine tablets distributed, and plant employees used seawater and external electrical power to cool the stricken reactors, three of which had a partial core meltdown.

More »

Get Updates

Stay on top of what we’re working on by subscribing to our email digest.

optional

Our Hottest Stories

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •