Bloomberg.com and other news outlets reported yesterday that NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is meeting with the NRC today in Washington DC to discuss the risk of earthquake damage at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. According to Bloomberg, the Governor’s concern was sparked by an MSNBC.com report that concluded Indian Point is the most likely nuclear plant in the USA to experience core damage and a release of radioactive contamination following an earthquake.
This is a perfect example of how erroneous news reports about nuclear energy never seem to die. Even when such reports are refuted by multiple more qualified sources, politician still react. Anti-nuclear groups are astute at using these flawed reports to support their calls for nuclear plants to shut down. The details of this situation are contained in my letter to the editor of Bloomberg.com responsible for the story. Here’s a copy:
My letter to Mr. Theo Mullen, Editor, Bloomberg.com News on March 22, 2011
Mr. Mullen,
Your story “New York, NRC Set to Meet About Indian Point Plant Safety“ that appeared yesterday on Bloomberg.com news missed some important facts that are highly relevant to the issue of safety at the Indian Point nuclear plant.
Concern by Gov. Cuomo and other NY officials over the earthquake risk at Indian Point was heightened when they learned that Indian Point Nuclear Plant is “at the top of the list” for earthquake risk in the USA. The source of their heightened concern was a poorly researched report that first surfaced in this article by MSNBC.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asiapacific/. This erroneous report was spread quickly by countless news organizations and anti-nuclear groups.
The story by MSNBC.com reporter Bill Dedman was fundamentally flawed; he misused and mischaracterized NRC data. In addition, his article contained many gross inaccuracies. In fact, the NRC, in a very uncharacteristically blunt manner, refuted Dedman’s inappropriate use of their data as was reported here:
In summary, Gov. Cuomo’s concerns over earthquake risks at Indian Point are misplaced, and are the result of sloppy reporting and an overt attempt to sensationalize the risks.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this story.
Sincerely,
John Wheeler
Producer, This Week in Nuclear
John,
Don’t be misled by NRC’s non-denial denial.
NRC hasn’t said our numbers are wrong.
After all, they’re NRC’s numbers.
What NRC is saying is that it doesn’t do rankings. That’s right. We did, from NRC’s data. If the NRC was publishing the American League East standings, it would list them alphabetically. (That’s OK with me: Yankees would be last.)
You and your readers can see for yourself in the NRC report, just as we reported, that:
— NRC says the risk of quakes in the central and eastern states is higher than previously thought.
— It still thinks plants are safe.
— but their margin of safety is reduced.
— and some plants are now near the point where they should be re-examined, and perhaps retrofitted.
— and the technical staff says this should now move from being a research issue to a regulatory issue.
— and it has made its best estimates of the frequency (chance, odds) of an earthquake that would cause core damage to a plant, and those are in Appendix D, last column on the right. The links are at the bottom of the article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asiapacific/
Regards,
Bill Dedman
Bill, I appreciate your comments. The NRC study produced plant-specific results of the estimated change in risk from seismic hazards based on new information, and was not intended to produce an absolute value of the seismic risk for each plant. Without an absolute value of risk for each individual reactor, comparisons and rankings are meaningless. The MCNBC.com report said Indian Point and other east coast nuclear plants ”now find themselves at the top of the NRC’s danger list”. In truth, there is no such list. Phrases like “earthquake causing catastrophic failure” that “could expose the public to radiation” are inflammatory and misleading. The NRC calculated the probability of fuel damaging events, NOT the risk of substantial radiation releases. The difference is important! While a fuel damaging event COULD cause a release, in most cases it would not. Since there are three barriers to fission product release (the fuel cladding is the first barrier), the chances of a radiation release are far, far lower. I believe your report exaggerated the risk and created an emotional reaction on the part of less informed members of the public. Those fears are being promoted by anti-nuclear groups who are using your report to further their cause. The consequences are not insignificant; elected officials are forced to react. This engages resources of the NRC and many people in the nuclear industry at a time when their attention would be better spent focusing on helping Japan and learning from the Fukushima event. Regards, John Wheeler
Further investigation shows that the link included above leads to a blog post reporting an alleged interview with the NRC, not an official statement from the organization. In the future, content with such claims will be scrutinized more closely before publishing. Thank you.
Amy, does your reference to an “alleged interview” imply you believe DailyTech.com made false claims? I understand and agree with your interest in maintaining journalistic integrity of content. That said, the NRC rarely makes “official” comments on media reports. The DailyTech.com story DID include paraphrases of the author’s conversation with an NRC spokesperson (including the spokesperson’s name), and excerpts from linked NRC documents.
Hi John:Thank for your clarifying question. I’m not taking a position here; I meant alleged as in ‘no proof’.The only statement actually attributed to a named NRC spokesman is a general comment on seismic stability and containment which is found, word for word, in a widely distributed NRC Fukushima FAQ (http://www.nrc.gov/japan/faqs-related-to-japan.pdf). Author claims NRC rep Sheehan wrote this text personally to him. The NRC does not directly refute Dedman in the blog post cited above. Its author refutes on behalf of the NRC, who made no official statement, referring to a conversation that is impossible to verify occurred. As is, the excerpts in the blog post are impossible to put in context. Regardless, I appreciate your recognition of the importance of keeping content professional and constructive on TEC. This effort has become even more important to us recently.Thank you for your contributions; I encourage you to keep them coming. cheers, Amelia
John, this statement is false: The NRC study produced plant-specific results of the estimated change in risk from seismic hazards based on new information, and was not intended to produce an absolute value of the seismic risk for each plant.”
You should read the NRC report, not just relying on its spin. The figures are in Appendix D, last column on the right. As the NRC report describes, these are values for the seismic risk of core damage at each plant.
John, your statement is false: “The NRC study produced plant-specific results of the estimated change in risk from seismic hazards based on new information, and was not intended to produce an absolute value of the seismic risk for each plant. Without an absolute value of risk for each individual reactor, comparisons and rankings are meaningless.”Determing a value of the seismic risk for each plant was precisely what the NRC’s study did. It also showed the figures based on previous seismic data, so we could determine the change in risk.In other words, you say the NRC didn’t determine the value of seismic risk. If you get a chance to read the report, you’ll see that it did.And you say that the NRC did determine the change in seismic risk. No, if you get a chance to read the report, you’ll see that it did not. But that was easily calcuated by any reader, just as we calculated it.The NRC report is available for anyone to read. Linked from the bottom of our article:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asiapacific/