Stakeholder #2

Every event has a major stakeholder and one or more minor stakeholders. In the Fukushima-Daiichi meltdown in March of 2011, there was one major stakeholder, TEPCO, and numerous minor ones. One of these minor stakeholders is the Nuclear Energy Institute.

 

Nuclear Energy Institute, "Nuclear Energy Institute Logo", Registered Trademark 2015

1. Can you describe this other stakeholder in 200-250 words? If they're an individual, vividly describe how they look, what they wear, how they move. Tell us how they sound, how they talk, what their mannerisms are. Conjure them in our mind's eye, by appealing to at least THREE of our FIVE senses. If the stakeholder is an institution or group, then describe the institution and how it appears in the world. How do people encounter this group or institution, digitally or physically? Describe their website or headquarters or something else that physically represents the group to the world at large.
The second major stakeholder in the controversy is a very general group: nuclear power proponents. Since this group is made up of many smaller ones I have decided to choose one that is based in the United States for convince. The Nuclear Energy Institution is a political lobbyist group that is based in Washington DC. The group represents nuclear power companies and researchers and works to get nuclear power issues in front of Congress. The NEI is a very strong proponent of nuclear energy in the United States. The NEI corresponds with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to improve nuclear power and make it a viable option for the United States. The group is moderately large and has 28,000 followers on their twitter page. When the Fukushima-Daiichi meltdown occurred, the NEI began pushing for Congress and the NRC to work with nuclear power companies to increase their emergency preparedness in case of a natural disaster and to increase the safety standards of the nuclear industry. Their website is geared towards informing the community of nuclear energy and how it is cleaner than other power sources. The website also has information about what is going on in the news concerning nuclear power.

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote should be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.
"The nuclear energy industry has taken seriously the accident at Fukushima Daiichi and continues to both support recovery efforts in Japan and compile lessons learned that can be applied to U.S. reactors. We have undertaken significant work in the past 90 days to examine our facilities and take the steps necessary to enhance safety. We will continue to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to identify potential enhancements in safety that should be made." -Source

"The nuclear industry is implementing a response strategy called "FLEX" which will provide the greatest safety benefits in the shortest period of time. FLEX will mitigate those extreme, unexpected scenarios that are beyond the plants’ de-sign parameters. " -Source

"Additionally the industry's added regional response centers as a lesson learned from Japan. We've taken it a little bit further than that you may have heard press releases where we talked about the two regional response centers that we've located in Memphis and Phoenix, but it's also the 65 other facilities in the U.S. that we share equipment with freely." -Source

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they? Be specific. Think about how poorly or successfully the stakeholder cites FACTS, plays on our EMOTIONS, or presents themselves as a CREDIBLE actor in the debate.
All three of these claims are credible and are in response to the Fukusima-Daiichi meltdown. The claims carry some weight but are relatively weak when compared to what a government can do. The NEI focuses mainly on facts to persuade people to work with them.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?
The claims made by the NEI are concerned with using the disaster as a way to improve the nuclear energy industry unlike TEPCO which is mainly trying to save themselves from their failure. They have the least in common with the groups who oppose nuclear energy because those groups are making claims that the disaster shows that nuclear power is not safe to utilize.