Professionalism/Richard Perkins and the NRC

Primary Actors

Richard Perkins and Lawrence Criscione

Richard Perkins and Lawrence Criscione were NRC employees who independently discovered the Oconee flood threat and reluctantly chose to reveal sensitive information. Both had experience in the energy industry and believed that the NRC was failing to address safety concerns regarding flood threats, and was keeping such threats a secret from the public.

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Committee

The NRC initially noted the flood threat but failed to properly force Duke to address the concerns. Worried about their own reputation, the NRC then began to make such information secret, failing to inform the public of the risk while simultaneously failing to address the problem. They censored information regarding the plant and dam, claiming that it could be used by terrorists.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy established and currently operates the Oconee Nuclear Station. Duke was informed of the flood threat posed by a possible failure of the Jocassee Dam by the NRC, yet evaluated the situation and claimed that the risk of dam failure was low and that personnel could stabilize the situation in case of an emergency without further safety measures. Without continued pressure from the NRC, Duke made no outstanding changes to their flood protection systems until urged to reevaluate the plant's flood security following Perkins' and Criscione's actions.

Context and Event

The Oconee Nuclear Station, built and operated by Duke Energy, broke ground in 1967 and began operating as early as 1973[1]. In 1983, Duke Energy evaluated the external flooding effects on Oconee by nearby waterways and infrastructure. Duke Energy calculated potential flood heights of 4.71 feet in the event of a failure at the upstream Jocasee Damn. By 1984, 5-foot protective flood walls were erected around Oconee's critical infrastructure, most notably the standby shutdown facility[2]. The standby shutdown facility is responsible for safely shutting down the entire nuclear plant in the event of a catastrophe. Were it to malfunction or fail at its task, the plant would succumb to a nuclear meltdown.

In 1992, by the request of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), another study was conducted by Duke Energy on the flood risk posed by a failure at the Jacosee Damn. Here, "worst case scenario" estimates of flood heights exceeded the protection afforded by the 5-foot flood walls[2]. Duke Energy dismissed these numbers, however, claiming they were "not credible" due to the conservative parameters set in the study. Future studies conducted by Duke Energy in 2009 and 2010 would support the 1992 findings[2].

External flood risks were brought to NRC's attention in a 1995 Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) submittal by Duke Energy for Oconee. In this submittal, Duke Energy claimed the risk of flooding damage posed by failure at the upstream Jocasee Dam was negligible. This was due to the estimated low chance of dam failure. Duke Energy further concluded that "external flooding does not pose severe accident vulnerability"[2]. Estimates conducted in 2010 by the NRC, however, predict the chances of failure at the Jacossee damn magnitudes higher than the 1995 submittal[2].

These inconsistencies in reporting and safety measures were compiled in a 2011 report to the NRC authored by Richard Perkins. Perkins' report discusses 20 other US nuclear plants with similar inconsistencies[2]. Upon the public release of Perkins' report, the NRC heavily redacted figures and writing by Perkins that indicated the potential failure of these plants. This was under the pretence that this information could jeopardize the safety of the plants and was, therefore, a matter of national security[3]. Under these assumptions, the information could be withheld from the public, as defined by the 1967 Freedom of Information Act[4].

In a 2012 press release, the NRC reported on the issue of flood dam failure, stating they “did not identify any immediate safety concerns”[3]. Shortly after, Richard Perkins and Lawrence Criscione, independent of each other, sent public letters to the Inspector General and Chairman of the NRC, respectively. Their letters would outline their grievances towards the NRC's handling of information directly linked to public safety and, for the first time, place the issue in the public spotlight.  

Aftermath

Following Perkins’ and Criscione’s letters, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) submitted a FOIA request to gain access to several documents regarding the Oconee Case from the NRC in 2013. The NRC failed to provide all the requested information, claiming exemption from such a request due to continuing to categorize the flood threat as a national security issue. PEER then pursued a lawsuit, believing that all the information regarding the flood threat was already public knowledge (provided by the agencies in charge of the dam), and that the NRC was effectively “shielding its negligence from public view”[5]. The lawsuit was settled with the NRC being ordered to provide the documents to PEER, though with an added stipulation that the NRC was not admitting fault or liability[6].

Following safety evaluations in 2013 and 2015, Duke successfully completed safety improvements at Oconee specifically to protect against a flood from the Jocassee Dam’s failure in 2016, likely pressured to do so by the NRC following the whistleblowing[7]. Current documents regarding Oconee’s protection against flood hazards are now available through FOIA requests[8].

Nonetheless, the NRC had regarded the flood threat as credible since 2008, but failed to strongly enforce any security measures. When pressured about the inaction, the NRC aimed to censor information regarding the threat while still not cracking down on Duke. Only when finally confronted about the issue (and the illegal cover-up) did the NRC finally address the safety concerns at Oconee.

Ethical Implications

Professional Ethics Examples

Richard Perkins

Richard Perkins set a strong example of professional ethics and showed that he had a deep knowledge of himself and his values. Perkins had to deal with the conflicting values of keeping sensitive information private and prioritizing public safety. Describing this conflict, Perkins said "When you're working with sensitive information, you just don't talk about it, so what I'm doing I find to be both perverse and uncomfortable, but I had to do it"[9]. His statement that he "had to do it" showed that he was able to discern which conflicting value took precedence. The action he took also required him to put his own self interest on hold to do what was right. By making his allegations about the NRC public, he jeopardized his own career. He understood and truly believed that at the NRC their "mandate is to promote safety". In Perkins words, the NRC's inaction and redactions have "allowed a very dangerous scenario to continue unaddressed for years"[9]. He claims that his "involves a violation of law and is not related to a technical opinion or distinction"[10] and indicated that if he stayed silent, he would be complicit in the act.

Lawrence Criscione

Lawrence Criscione made it clear in his letter, to Chairman Allison Macfarlane of the NRC, that this was a matter of professional ethics. His professional ethics perspective on this issue was that "as a professional engineer and as a public servant I have a duty to the citizens of this country to address my concerns regarding the NRC’s handling of the Jocassee Dam issue with the staffs of our congressional oversight committees"[11]. In his letter, he quoted Admiral Rickover saying that "A major flaw in our system of government, and even in industry, is the latitude to do less than is necessary. Too often officials are willing to accept and adapt to situations they know to be wrong. The tendency is to downplay problems instead of actively trying to correct them"[11]. Criscione agrees with this statement about the system of government but is clearly not willing to accept or adapt to a situation he knew was wrong.

Ethics Violations

Through their statements, both Perkins and Criscione allege that the NRC was failing to uphold several of the fundamental canons of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics. In the letter that he made public, Perkins said, "I allege that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has intentionally mischaracterized relevant and noteworthy safety information as sensitive, security information in an effort to conceal the information from the public"[10]. Criscione agreed and pointed out that "Merely withholding safety-related information from Congress and thereby impeding the handling of nuclear safety issues is not an acceptable way of addressing security threats"[11]. These statements indicate that they believed the NRC was violating fundamental canons one, three, and five of the NSPE code of ethics. These canons state that a professional engineer will hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, will issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner, and will avoid deceptive acts.

The NRC also did not respect whistleblower protections especially pertaining to Lawrence Criscione. Although Criscione made a compelling case, based on professional ethics, for his actions, the Inspector General for the NRC requested that the Justice Department charge Criscione with misuse of a government computer. Fortunately, the Justice Department quickly declined the request. Criscione suffered the emotional distress of not knowing he had been exonerated for thirteen months[12]. He also endured several hostile interrogations by investigators working for the NRC. This treatment of someone acting out of concern for the public is unacceptable.

  1. ↑ Duke Energy (January 2018). "Oconee Nuclear Station Fact Sheet" (PDF). Retrieved 2025-05-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ↑ a b c d e f Perkins, Richard (July 2011). "Screening Analysis Report for the Proposed Generic Issue on Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failures" (PDF). Retrieved 2025-04-14. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 60 (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ↑ a b Zeller, Tom (September 14, 2012). "Flood Threat To Nuclear Plants Covered Up By Regulators, NRC Whistleblower Claims". Huff Post. Retrieved 2025-04-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ↑ Wright, David (October 19, 2012). "Dam Failures and Flooding at US Nuclear Plants". The Equation. Retrieved 2025-04-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ↑ Sargent, Susan (2013-08-15). "Lawsuit to Ventilate Reactor Inundation Nightmare Scenarios". PEER.org. Retrieved 2025-05-06.
  6. ↑ Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document 6. (D.C. 2013)
  7. ↑ "Oconee flood protection improvements complete". World Nuclear News. Retrieved 2025-05-06.
  8. ↑ "Recent FOIA Requests - May 2022". NRC Web. Retrieved 2025-05-06.
  9. ↑ a b "Nuclear Power Whistleblowers Sound Alarm On Secrecy Among Feds". HuffPost. 2012-12-04. Retrieved 2025-05-01.
  10. ↑ a b Perkins, Richard (2012). Concealment of Significant Nuclear Safety Information by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  11. ↑ a b c Criscione, Lawrence (2012). Letter to the Chairman of the NRC (PDF).
  12. ↑ Gordon, Greg. "Will Hillary Clinton benefit from an 'un-American double standard'?". McClathy DC.
This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.