NRC: Proper response to Fukushima? Less preparedness.

[kristopher]

Feds quietly cut safety drills at nuclear power plants
4:16 AM, May. 17, 2012
Written by Jeff Donn Associated Press

Without fanfare, the nation’s nuclear power regulators have overhauled community emergency planning for the first time in more than three decades, requiring fewer exercises for major accidents and recommending that fewer people be evacuated right away.

Nuclear watchdogs voiced surprise and dismay over the quietly adopted revamp — the first since the program began after the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. Several said they were unaware of the changes until now, though they took effect in December.

At least four years in the works, the changes appear to clash with more recent lessons of last year’s reactor crisis in Japan. A mandate that local responders always run practice exercises for a radiation release has been eliminated — a move viewed as downright bizarre by some emergency planners.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which run the program together, have added one new exercise: More than a decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, state and community police will now take part in exercises that prepare for a possible assault on their local plant....

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120517/NEWS08/305170045/Feds-quietly-cut-safety-drills-nuclear-power-plants

[bananas]

1. This is insane. nt

[FBaggins]

2. Actually, yes... that probably is the proper response to Fukushima.

Not "less preparedness" of course, but preparedness for what we learned at Fukushima.

One obvious one leaps to mind. If we take some of your previous posts as true, there have been some hundreds of people who were not killed by radiation or tsunami... but instead by worry/stress/fear associated with the evacuation.

It's entirely appropriate for a plan change in response to that to avoid unnecessary panic.

Most of the radiation studies on which evacuation guidelines have been based were originally done to establish safe levels for radiation in the workplace, Yanch says — meaning they are very conservative. In workplace cases, this makes sense because the employer can pay for shielding for all of their employees at once, which lowers the cost, she says.

However, “when you’ve got a contaminated environment, then the source is no longer controlled, and every citizen has to pay for their own dose avoidance,” Yanch says. “They have to leave their home or their community, maybe even forever. They often lose their jobs, like you saw in Fukushima. And there you really want to call into question how conservative in your analysis of the radiation effect you want to be. Instead of being conservative, it makes more sense to look at a best estimate of how hazardous radiation really is.”

Those conservative estimates are based on acute radiation exposures, and then extrapolating what might happen at lower doses and lower dose-rates, Engelward says. “Basically you’re using a data set collected based on an acute high dose exposure to make predictions about what’s happening at very low doses over a long period of time, and you don’t really have any direct data. It’s guesswork,” she says. “People argue constantly about how to predict what is happening at lower doses and lower dose-rates.”

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515.html

[kristopher]

6. Sheesh... From the same writeup by the very ProNuclear Dept of Nuclear Engineering at MIT

... the researchers say that more studies are needed before evacuation guidelines can be revised.

“Clearly these studies had to be done in animals rather than people, but many studies show that mice and humans share similar responses to radiation. This work therefore provides a framework for additional research and careful evaluation of our current guidelines,” Engelward says.

A study on mice.

[FBaggins]

9. Sheesh indeed.

The guidelines weren't really changed...and to the extent that one could claim that they were, they weren't changed based on this study.

Did you miss "Extensive research shows health risks from an accident would be greatest within two miles of a plant" ???

The changes the MIT study is hinting at would be much more significant. They're not talking about initial evacuations during an incident... they're talking about guidelines for ongoing "no go" zones that are based on long-term dose rates rather than acute exposure.

[kristopher]

17. Sheesh fersure, dude. You posted it before you realized it was irrelevant.

You also omitted a key part of the writeup. I'm sure that was merely an oversight.

[FBaggins]

18. Who said it was irrelevant?

It's entirely relevant.

You also omitted a key part of the writeup.

Nope. You were unable to differentiate between the two... which I knew in advance would happen if I confused the issue by including it.

[kristopher]

23. I did.

It is irrelevant, and you omitted a key passage when you thought it was.

If you look at the title of the thread NRC: Proper response to Fukushima? Less preparedness you'll find that my focus was the decision to reduce an already inadequate regime of disaster preparedness drills to a point of nothingness.

I used to plan and run exercises designed to coordinate large scale response to disasters and emergencies that posed the threat of a disaster. No one wants to do it when things are going well, but it is the role of the regulator to ensure that it gets done nonetheless.

In the shadow of Fukushima this move is inexcusable. They should unquestionably increase emphasis on exercising preparedness planning involving the public, not reduce it. The only conceivable reason to take this action is to downplay in the public mind the possibility of a disaster at a nuclear plant.

It is unconscionable.

[FBaggins]

3. The NRC response

I presume no excerpting is necessary since it's a government press release

NRC PUBLICLY IMPROVED EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RULE;
MORE CHANGES TO COME

A recent article in the media fails to properly describe how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission followed a very open, deliberate path in protecting the public by improving requirements for emergency preparedness (EP) plans and exercises at U.S. nuclear power plants. We’d like to set the record straight.
The NRC, working closely with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), started the process to revise the EP rule after a top-to-bottom review in 2005 noted areas for improvement. The rulemaking also formalized security orders U.S. plants put in place after the events of 9/11.

The NRC discussed the proposed changes at public conferences in 2007 and 2008, and the agency issued draft rule language in early 2008. Additional public meetings on the draft language in 2008 were followed by a proposed rule published in the Federal Register for public comment in May 2009. The NRC took public input on the proposed rule for five months, holding a dozen public meetings and gathering several hundred comments. Staff from the NRC and FEMA briefed the Commission on Dec. 8, 2009, and May 3, 2011, both of which involved a panel of external stakeholders, regarding the proposed rule.

The Commission approved the final rule on Aug. 30, 2011. Media outlets, including the Associated Press and several television stations, provided coverage of the agency’s press release at that time. The release noted aspects of the rule that the recent media report missed, including new requirements for back-up means of alerting the public and for updating evacuation time estimates when population changes warrant. The NRC held additional public meetings around the country after the rule was published; more than 550 people participated.

The recent media report fails to properly describe one of the new rule’s important changes, adding needed uncertainty to emergency exercises. The NRC learned an important lesson in its EP review – plant personnel and state and local officials had become so used to scenarios requiring evacuation that they made decisions long before available information would support their actions. In the real world, that could place the public at risk of accidents on the road even if no evacuation was warranted. The new EP rule fixes that by requiring some scenarios damage a plant without releasing radioactive material – this will force exercise participants to make prudent decisions instead of jumping the gun on evacuation.

Another change poorly described in the recent media report involves a revision to evacuation procedures. Extensive research shows health risks from an accident would be greatest within two miles of a plant, so guidance for the new rule focuses on that close-in population. Getting the “two-mile” people relocated first is more effective than potentially clogging evacuation routes with people further away, and can ensure resources are available for protective actions within 10 miles of the plant. Other research, announced earlier this year, provides additional insight into how successful EP procedures, combined with the slow-developing nature of a reactor accident, can keep the public safe.

One of the EP rule changes requires U.S. nuclear power plants to perform an exercise with a security rather than safety focus on a regular basis. These exercises do not replace the ongoing security-based force-on-force drills the NRC requires at every plant.

The NRC continues to examine EP issues in light of last year’s accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi. The agency has asked U.S. nuclear power plants to analyze their staffing needs for events involving multiple reactors at a given site. The NRC is also in the early stages of rulemaking to integrate and strengthen several categories of nuclear plant emergency procedures. The agency also continues to examine information from Fukushima to see what else can be learned regarding the size of evacuation planning zones and the use of potassium iodide. The NRC will ensure all U.S. nuclear power plants implement the post-Fukushima actions that are warranted.


http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/for-the-record/2012/ftr-05-15-2012.pdf

[RobertEarl]

7. They really are Smart, aren't they? NOT

The NRC will ensure all U.S. nuclear power plants implement the post-Fukushima actions that are warranted.

So, they are saying they don't know what the fuck is up and they even admit there may be more implementations that are warranted but for now they are going to say "Screw the safety ideas that we've lived with" while making an audacious claim that "....slow-developing nature of a reactor accident, can keep the public safe", WTF? Slow developing? Fukushima and Chernobyl blew up in hours and the plumes went for 100's of miles!!

Maybe they consider that TMI was slow because they saw it coming for years? And that is all they can consider? "We can see it coming, so it doesn't happen very fast, really."

There is this truth: the ticking time bombs ticcing away is ignored by the NRC. That is all too obvious. It's right there in their statement.

Gawd, we are doomed.

[FBaggins]

8. You continue with your own imagined course of events?

Is it too much to ask you to at least read a basic timeline if you're going to tell others what "really" happened?

slow-developing nature of a reactor accident, can keep the public safe", WTF? Slow developing? Fukushima and Chernobyl blew up in hours

The first explosion at Fukushima was almost a full day after the earthquake began (and was about as close to worst-case as you can get in a BWR - no power or backup generators and the operators making at least a couple significant errors). That's plenty of time to evacuate people within two miles and then move on to the five-mile line. And the most significant explosion was almost four days after the earthquake.

Chernobyl of course was much quicker but was entirely different from western reactors. It literally can't happen that way here.

and the plumes went for 100's of miles!!

Tens of thousands of miles actually... but that hardly matters. The size of the plume containing life-threatening levels of radiation was nowhere near that big... and fits well within the NRC's plan.

[RobertEarl]

10. You stick with that

"slow developing" shtick.

Read link below about TMI and how people were caught in the plume. Did NRC protect them? No!

The idea is, that people be well warned and well prepared to start moving out the second there is the slightest indication of a problem.

And if you move the ten milers out the two milers won't be climbing over them to get out.

Anyway, NRC was a failure at it's only real life action and they should admit it and warn everyone to have a bag packed and ready to go at a moments notice. Are they doing that? Hell no. So, they fail again and again to really protect the public.

Read this an weep, it is about the TMI health problems:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/28/7954

Indeed, all the property owners 50 miles around should have their property bought by the NPP owners. In reality, they are walking dead if they stay.

[FBaggins]

11. The "link below" is fiction.

So sorry to break it to you... but it's far more useful as fertilizer than evidence for debate.

Here's a far better source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/study090190.htm

The average dose of radiation received by local residents ranged from 0.01 rem in the low exposure areas to 0.025 rem in the high exposure areas, the researchers said. The highest dose was about one-third to one-fourth that of the average annual "background" dose that Americans receive from natural radioactivity.

[RobertEarl]

12. You didn't even read the link

Take your nonsense out of here. If you didn't even read the link how can you honestly respond?

You posted 6 minutes after I posted at 11:11 and it would take at least 10 minutes to read the story there.

And at 11:12 you replied to me in this post linked below so you would have had just 4 minutes to read the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=15122

[FBaggins]

13. No... YOU didn't read it.

For instance, you claim that they say that cancer rates declined after the plant shut down.

They make no such claim. They instead are instead making a (false) claim about retired reactors that never had accidents. They're claiming that even the incredibly tiny amount of radiation that the NRC permits on an ongoing basis (a small fraction of what a coal plant puts out all the time) is killing thousands of people. The author has elsewhere claimed that normally operating reactors are responsible for tens of thousands of cases of leukemia. He's also one of the nuts who thinks that depleted uranium is a WMD radiation hazard.

You posted 6 minutes after I posted

The article is over four years old and often cited by the gullible who don't understand the science. It is, for instance, ridiculous to associate infant death rates during the month of an accident with radiation that somehow doesn't cause any other acute effects. It's ridiculous to associate cancer rates for types of cancer that have never shown a link to radiation... to a reactor incident. It's ridiculous to talk about "50% increases!!!" when the increase was from two cases to three cases (obviously well within normal variability). It's ridiculous to blame a cancer that takes ten years to develop... on a reactor incident that occurred a couple years earlier.

Hardly the only errors... but evidence enough to know that it's worth no more than a chuckle.

[RobertEarl]

14. Typical nuker response

Chuckling about people getting sick from nuclear radiation.

But I see that you do admit the truth that NPP's do emit radiation.

[FBaggins]

15. Absolutely correct.

It's a typical nuker response to provide facts in the face of wild unsupportable BS.

Chuckling about people getting sick from nuclear radiation.

Wrong. Chuckling over some ignorant author falsely claiming that people got sick from nuclear radiation when no such thing occured... and MANY far more authoritative sources have said so clearly.

Or, for instance, chuckling over talking about cancer rates in the "ten surrounding counties" when the ones with the higher rates were the ones upwind of the reactor during the accident and all were within the normal variability range.

But I see that you do admit the truth that NPP's do emit radiation.

Almost everything emits radiation. You emit radiation (along with an above average share of hot air it appears). The question is whether it emits anything worth talking about. There was no ongoing years-long leak of radiation impacting the surrounding population.

[RobertEarl]

16. Right

You know it all. You are a nuke professional, right? This is your career, right?

[FBaggins]

19. No... it isn't my career.

And no, I'm not a nuclear professional.

Yes, I have both the education and a small amount of relevant service to understand the issues we've been debating.

What's your expertise? It's clear that you have an understanding of nuclear physics indistinguishable from zero (to at least two decimal places). You continually make things up and present them as fact that even a cursory reading of commonly available materials would avoid, and continually refer to sources that are no more than internet conspiracy theory and/or shill sites... often not even correctly presenting their position (as with the recent claim that an article documented reduced cancers after a plant shut down... that hasn't shut down).

So I ask again... I answered your question... what reason do you have to believe that you actually understand the subject matter under debate? Any health physics training? Any background in physics at all?

[RobertEarl]

20. So, you don't know it all

Why is it you try and act like you do?

I mean you sit there and say that there are no releases, then you say there are releases but that the releases aren't relevant and you laugh at the science that says radiation has caused many people to become sick.

What is then your agenda?

My agenda is protecting people and the environment form man-made radiation. What is your agenda? It certainly does not seem to be the truth. It seems it is an agenda to protect nuclear industry.

What is your agenda?

[FBaggins]

21. Sorry RE...

...but when you go 0-for-20 you're going to make the pitcher look good.

That isn't the same thing as the pitcher claiming to be Cy Young reincarnated.

I mean you sit there and say that there are no releases, then you say there are releases but that the releases aren't relevant

For all intents and purposed, the ongoing release from TMI was zero... but there's no such thing as absolute zero since pretty much everything is radioactive (just in amounts too small to discuss).

you laugh at the science that says radiation has caused many people to become sick.

If you're talking about that BS about the tens of thousands of people killed by TMI, then that is not "science". If instead you're talking about the history of radiation exposure in general? No... I'm not laughing at that. I'm laughing that you think that science supports the BS about TMI you were spouting.

What is then your agenda?

Very simple. Overcoming ignorance with truth... trying to do so in a way that a layman can understand. If his paranoia refuses to allow him to hear... that's not my problem.

My agenda is protecting people and the environment form man-made radiation.

Then start doing that. Attempting to do so by spouting intentional falsehoods created by others does nothing to help that... it only makes you look gullible (like those who fall for chemtrails, WTC conspiracies, UFOs, Illuminati, etc).

[RobertEarl]

22. heh

The only report you linked to was a 1989 report that was disputed by the same source you linked to.

Even you said that some cancers would take 10 years to show up, but your link was about a report with less than 10 years of science. So by your own reasoning your are saying that what you stand on is not worth the paper it is printed on.

So..... you really have NO truth.

This is the truth: Radiation kills. And radiation is released from nuke plants all the time.

[Kolesar]

24. You're spewing the same flame bait that the asshole from New Jersey put up on this forum years ago

"What's your expertise? It's clear that you have an understanding of nuclear physics indistinguishable from zero (to at least two decimal places). "

Go find a real hobby

[FBaggins]

25. Not at all.

I think I know who you're talking about and there's absolutely no comparison (in fact, your vulgarity puts you closer to his tactics than you'll find in my posts).

"What's your expertise?" is a perfectly valid question in response to the poster's question regarding my background. Taking a playful jab at his all-too-evident lack of knowledge is hardly out of bounds after multiple corrections without changing behavior.

[Kolesar]

26. It is clear that your understanding of politics is "indistinguishable from zero"

Baby, baby, baby, do you like it?

[kristopher]

27. What is your expertise, my dear FBaggins?

[FBaggins]

28. If you assume the best of me... do I get to accuse you of stalking?

Have we not been over my background more than once? Does it make one whit of difference to how you respond?
If you believe that pro-nuclear posters are industry plants intentionally lying in online forums, why on earth would you accept what they say about themselved as true?

[kristopher]

29. You've asked me any number of times and I've answered

I've asked you and you've evading answering.

You are now asking someone else, claiming their "expertise" is relevant.

Since it is a large part of how YOU see the issues apparently, it is perfectly fair to ask what expertise *you* bring to the table.

Well?

[XemaSab]

30. .

[bananas]

4. "a move viewed as downright bizarre by some emergency planners"

Why would emergency planners call it "bizarre"?
Because it is bizarre.

[kristopher]

5. It makes perfect sense to me

What could be a worse influence on public opinion that regular drills to prepare for disaster related to the one near them. The important thing right now is to boost public acceptance of nuclear power. Didn't you get the memo?