Bad Directions: Energy Blog Post Directs Readers to Shoddy AP Series

Around the time of the July 4 holiday, we responded to a four-part series published by The Associated Press that was larded with inaccuracies about the nuclear energy industry. It’s one thing for a single newspaper to get something wrong in a single print file; quite another when a global news wire service devotes more than a year and notable resources to an “investigative” series characterized by shoddy reporting throughout. What could have been a notable public service by the AP instead turned out to be a grievously misguided series that lacked vital context. NEI’s Chief Nuclear Officer Tony Pietrangelo pulled no punches in assessing the merits of the AP series in a video posted to our YouTube channel.

Most recently, this Boingboing.net post – AP: US nuclear power plant safety isn’t being tightly regulated – directs readers to the AP articles. While the Boingboing.net post contains some perspective that highlights how nuclear energy can be beneficial in the economic and environmental arenas, the AP series most certainly does not. And we weren’t the only ones troubled by the AP reporting – our regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, took the unusual step of responding formally and directly and critically to the news organization’s series.

It is wrong to conclude that nuclear plant operators are systemically working with regulators to endanger the lives of employees, their families and their neighbors by implementing subpar standards and regulations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses the professionals who operate a facility’s reactor, in addition to continuously assessing a plant’s performance and safety. The independent NRC inspectors who work at each nuclear energy facility have unfettered access to workers and information at that site and have the authority to shut down facilities they believe are unsafe. They can also order changes in operations. Bottom line: the NRC can shut America’s nuclear plants down if they aren’t operating safely.

And if there is ever a doubt in nuclear power safety, remember this fact: there have been zero “abnormal occurrences” [the NRC’s term] throughout the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the past eight years (2003-10). Optimized technology, expertise and innovation from industry employees (your neighbors), continuous sharing of plant operating experience and precise monitoring capabilities are among the reasons U.S. citizens near nuclear energy facilities are safe.

The author of the BoingBoing post references protection of the Ft. Calhoun reactor in Nebraska in the wake of record Missouri River flooding. The facility was safe because it met all NRC requirements for flood protection (it was designed and built on a higher elevation as step one) and because Omaha Public Power District took additional measures to hold flood waters back. Among these extra measures was installing a 2,000 foot long water-filled berm to protect electrical equipment—yet another example of the nuclear energy industry exceeding federal safety standards.

Every industry has its supporters and detractors, and the flow of information will be abundant. This is why we urge everyone to effectively weigh the information included and omitted in the AP series by reading “Setting the Record Straight: NEI Responds to AP Series on Nuclear Energy.”

Safe, reliable nuclear energy is a vital part of America’s energy portfolio today. The industry is building new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina and designing the next generation of plants to maintain the most significant of low-carbon electricity we have to secure our energy future.

By NEI’s Media Relations Manager, John Keeley (you can see him in the YouTube video)

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog