Energy and Commerce Committee to Probe Breakdowns in NRC Oversight

1/8/08

Energy and Commerce Committee to Probe Breakdowns in NRC Oversight

NEWS RELEASE
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman For immediate release: Monday, January 7, 2008 Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-2927

Energy and Commerce Committee to Probe Breakdowns in NRC Oversight

Washington, DC – Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, today announced they will conduct a comprehensive review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) operations following reports of security guards sleeping on the job at the Exelon Peach Bottom nuclear power plant.

“The NRC’s stunning failure to act on credible allegations of sleeping security guards, coupled with its unwillingness to protect the whistleblower who uncovered the problem, raises troubling questions,” said Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. “It appears that there has been a systematic failure, by both NRC officials and the nuclear plant licensee, to ensure that these high-risk facilities are secure and employees are not discouraged from expressing concerns about safety.”

“The Committee would like to know whether it was the repeated notification from a concerned employee or the threat of a videotape showing security workers asleep on the job appearing on the evening news that prompted the licensee to look into this matter,” said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. “In addition, the Committee wants to know why the NRC remains confident in this same contractor’s ability to secure other nuclear facilities throughout the country.”

Investigations by the NRC’s Inspector General have unveiled questionable decisions by the Commission with respect to nuclear power plant re-licensing. Additional questions have been raised about the adequacy of licensing decisions related to reprocessing facilities in South Carolina and the risk from a red oil explosion. The investigations have also concluded that the NRC failed to test the adequacy of fire protection materials after promising to do so during testimony before the Committee on Energy and Commerce in March 1993.

“The Administration has not complied with the requirements of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002, which requires the stockpiling of potassium iodide pills in a 20 mile radius around nuclear power plants,” said Dingell. “The Committee will inquire whether objections by the White House and industry have led to foot-dragging by the NRC and the dangerous state of our nation’s nuclear power plants.”

“It is clear that the NRC requires increased oversight by this Committee,” said Stupak. “We will be seeking testimony from the NRC, the inspector general, the Government Accountability Office, scientists, and security force workers to assess what is broken and how best to fix it. We must ensure the NRC is responsive to allegations of security lapses, especially now that there are a number of new license applications for nuclear power plants flowing into the NRC. The American people need to know someone is looking out for their health and safety at new and existing nuclear power plants.”

Fair Use Notice / Copyrights

Fair Use Notice This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml - If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Ten Reasons To Say No To Nuclear Power

1. Climate change is underway. Renewable energy can be brought online faster, more cheaply and more safely than nuclear power. 2. Reactors are sitting-duck targets and are not even defended to the ferocity of the 9/11 attacks. 3. Nuclear power is not emissions-free. Reactors routinely release radioactivity and use fossil fuels at every step from uranium mining to waste storage. 4. Building more reactors in the U.S. sends the wrong message abroad. Commercial nuclear technology inevitably leads to nuclear weapons capability. 5. The Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive dump is unsound and even if opened could not accommodate all wastes if generation continues. 6. Evacuation plans are unrealistic. Hurricane Katrina taught us that a mass evacuation during a serious radiological release would be a chaotic catastrophe. 7. A typical 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces enough plutonium each year to make 40 atomic bombs, an unacceptable risk. 8. New and old reactors are most prone to break down. U.S. reactors are old. New ones increase the risk of accident. 9. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission—mandated to watchdog the nuclear industry – chooses to protect industry profit over public health and safety. 10. The most defenseless are at the greatest risk—children, the elderly, minorities, the poor and animals—at every phase of the nuclear fuel chain. Ten Brighter Ideas 1. If every U.S. household installed one compact fluorescent light bulb, the power savings would equal the power produced by one nuclear reactor. 1=1! 2. Twenty compact fluorescents in every U.S. home could displace at least 25% of U.S. nuclear reactors. 3. Updated lighting, appliances, heating, cooling and other electrical systems can save more energy than all 103 U.S. reactors produce annually. 4. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures for homes and businesses can save at least 20% of electricity use. 5. Turning off and unplugging electrical equipment not in use and line-drying clothes seem like small measures but can make a big difference. 6. Homeowners and renters alike can choose to buy green power instead of nuclear generated electricity. 7. Properly sealing and insulating your home can save 25%-40% of building heat loss. 8. Renewable energy sources can meet 25% of U.S. energy needs by 2025. 9. Shifting to locally-generated electricity avoids waste, reduces brownouts and blackouts, increases efficiency of service and creates jobs. 10. Every dollar spent on nuclear power instead of fossil fuels results in releasing six times more carbon than if the same dollar is spent on efficiency. www.nirs.org 301.270.6477

"The No Nuker" - where No Nukes is good news !

1/8/08