On the Brink of a Meltdown

[sfc_oliver]

Dennis,
    Please tell us what part of learn from experience is so difficult to understand?

You see,  we know that our Nuke plants are getting older, but people like you prevent us from building new, better, safer ones so that the older ones can be taken off line.

    It's almost rocket science but not quite.

[irishbobcat]

towntalk.....don't scream at me.....I asked you simple questions.....can't help it if the questions got your undies all messed up....

the bottom line is, nuke power is not safe....

USA nuke plants are approaching 40 years of age as well....how safe are they?

the use of nuke power is a disaster waiting to happen....which is what is now playing out in Japan.....fun huh?

How safe are our plants?


As the world's attention remains focused on the nuclear calamity unfolding in Japan, American nuclear regulators and industry lobbyists have been offering assurances that plants in the United States are designed to withstand major earthquakes.

But the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which sits less than a mile from an offshore fault line, was not required to include earthquakes in its emergency response plan as a condition of being granted its license more than a quarter of a century ago. Though experts warned from the beginning that the plant would be vulnerable to an earthquake, asserting 25 years ago that it required an emergency plan as a condition of its license, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fought against making such a provision mandatory as it allowed the facility to be built.

Officials at Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the utility that operates Diablo Canyon, did not respond to calls seeking comment before the story was published. After publication, a spokesman for the company said the plant does have an earthquake procedure that had been implemented during a 2003 earthquake near the facility, and that staff are trained to respond. The company did not provide further details upon request.

As Americans absorb the spectacle of a potential nuclear meltdown in Japan -- one of the world's most proficient engineering powers -- the regulatory review that ultimately enabled Diablo Canyon to be built without an earthquake response plan amplifies a gnawing question: Could the tragedy in Japan happen at home?

Experts who recall how the California plant came to be erected offer a disconcerting answer: Yes. And some are calling for more urgent government action to review safety at nuclear plants across the country.

"What they're displaying now is exactly what was wrong in the past with the nuclear establishment, which is that they didn't have their priorities right," said Victor Gilinsky, who served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Diablo Canyon debate and agreed with the call for greater attention to earthquakes in emergency plans. "They're more concerned about the protection of the plants, and installation of further plants, than they are about public safety. The president should be saying, 'I want every single plant reviewed.'"

Back when the California plant was being finalized in the mid-1980s, local activists and environmental lawyers sued the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in an effort to slow the project, arguing that the clear risks from earthquakes nearby required additional planning.

Story continues below
AdvertisementThe case made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., where a 5-4 majority -- including current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and former Clinton independent counsel Kenneth Starr -- ruled that earthquakes did not have to be included in the plant's emergency response plans.

The underlying theory was that the plant's design, which came after years of planning and geological studies, could withstand any foreseeable earthquake in the area -- the same assumption that guided thinking in Japan.

"What they're saying is that there could be an earthquake, but in no way could it ever cause a radioactive release at the same time," said Rochelle Becker, who led the San Luis Obispo, Calif., group that first sued the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over earthquake preparedness in the 1980s. "I'm pretty sure we now have evidence that it does."

A spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed that the Diablo Canyon plant is not required to have an emergency response plan for earthquakes because the commission is satisfied that the plant's structure will be able to withstand an earthquake in the area -- calculated as a maximum magnitude of 7.5.

But officials at Tokyo Electric Co., the operator of Japan's stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant, said over the weekend that the strongest earthquake they had anticipated was much lower than the magnitude-9.0 quake that struck last Friday.

"That's a lesson that we ignore at our own peril, because we could be wrong, too," said Joel Reynolds, the attorney who originally brought the case against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and who is now a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in California. "It is a story as old as science that we're always learning new things. We're always discovering the unexpected."

Critics have raised particular questions about how a standard emergency response to a nuclear disaster could be complicated if it had been caused by an earthquake, where roads and other surrounding infrastructure would also be impaired.

So far, the commission has not specifically recommended any changes to safety regulations or emergency response procedures at nuclear plants in the United States.

"All our plants are designed to withstand significant natural phenomena like earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis," the commission's chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, said earlier this week. "We believe we have a very solid and strong regulatory infrastructure in place now." He added that the commission would "continue to take new information and see if there are changes that we need to make with our program."

Michael Mariotte, the executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a group critical of the nuclear industry and the regulatory process, said the pushback on response planning reflects an environment where the industry is helped along by regulators.

"That's the logic behind a lot of our nuclear regulation, unfortunately, is that it's designed to accommodate the operation of a plant, and not necessarily the protection of the public," Mariotte said. "If they acknowledged that an earthquake occurred that damaged the plant, then they're also acknowledging that an earthquake has damaged the transportation infrastructure, that you can't get people out properly, that the plant doesn't work, and then it can't be approved."

At the time the Diablo Canyon case was being litigated in the mid-1980s, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the electric utility looking to build the plant had been dealing with more than a decade's worth of federal and state reviews for the facility. Federal regulators were comfortable with their seismic reviews of the remote coastal area between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Comments made during closed meetings, later released to the public, showed that some NRC commissioners were concerned that additional public hearings surrounding the emergency response plan and earthquakes would slow the process further.

"One of the things that I think makes me shy away often from hearings is because as soon as we hear the word 'hearing,' you see so much time elapse that it maybe over-influences one," then-NRC Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino, who has since passed away, said at the time. "I do feel that at this late stage, requiring a delay while we wait for a hearing is not in the best national interest."

When the case involving earthquake response was eventually litigated all the way to the federal appeals court in D.C., which ultimately sided with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the five-member majority noted that there had already been extensive review of seismic activity around the plant.

"We can think of no potential natural or unnatural hazards, regardless of their improbability, that the Commission would not be required to consider," failed Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork wrote in an opinion for the appellate court. "That is a prescription for licensing proceedings that never end and plants that never generate electricity."

The four dissenting judges, including current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted: "The very purpose of the exercise is to plan for the unthinkable eventuality that the design safeguards will not prevent an accident."

"It defies common sense to exclude evidence about the complicating effects of earthquakes from a proceeding dealing with how to respond to a nuclear accident at a plant located three miles from an active fault, a plant in which seismic concerns dominated the design and construction proceedings for well over a decade," the justices wrote.

In recent years, the utility that operates Diablo Canyon, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, has recently found another fault line less than a mile from the plant after conducting research with the U.S. Geological Survey. The plant's original design had accounted for a fault that was farther offshore -- about three miles from the plant.

The spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Lara Uselding, said the utility has not found evidence that the newly discovered fault line would pose a risk to the plant. The commission is currently reviewing the company's geological report.

[Towntalk]

Especially the 24/7 news channels such as CNN.

[Rick Rowlands]

The news media ALWAYS makes everything out to be far worse than it usually turns out to be.  It also shows just how shallow these people are, to be surprised that there are people who would put the lives of others above their own. 

Can we now drop the opposition to coal now Dennis if we have to eliminate our nuke plants?  You may not think having light bulbs and electricity is important (I'm still planning to pull your meter BTW!),  but if you had been born in a country without electricity, at your age you would be dead as the life expectancy is not very long. 

[Towntalk]

This from CNN:

ALVAREZ: Well, I mean, this is a situation where people may be called in to sacrifice their lives, and I don't think that that's something that -- I mean, it's very difficult for me to contemplate that, but it's -- it may have reached that point.

BALDWIN: So we're talking, potentially -- you and I have talked about this before, about these 50 people, and I'm hearing it could be up to 180 people who are working, these emergency relief folks who know as they walk into any of these reactor sites that they would be risking their lives, and is that just part of the job? You know, when you sign up to work at a nuclear plant, in the case of a disaster, you could have to sacrifice your own life for the greater good.

ALVAREZ: Well, I don't think that this was in any way anticipated, and this certainly wasn't part of the job interview process when they were hired. But I think that as the accident unfolded, those people who are there clearly know that their lives are in jeopardy.

[jay]

I watched the ABC News this evening.  The reports made it sound as though the workers at the plant were making a last ditch effort, without regard for their own lives, to prevent a catastrophe.

The U.S. government has asked Americans to evacuate an area 50 miles around the site.

Thousands of people are leaving the country by airplane.

[Youngstownshrimp]

YTown is very thorough in his quest to gain knowledge unlike the propagandist.  What you have learned is what we refered to back in my Nuclear weapon days as a low yield detonation.  Ever wonder what precautions exist for nuclear powered ships, salt water.

[Why?Town]

I forgot to mention that any new reactors would surely be designed with 40 more years of real world experience compared to the Japanese reactors we are discussing.

just like cars and anything else, safety evolves.

[Why?Town]

I've been reading a lot about nuclear reactors since Friday.

Some things I've learned:

The reactors in question in Japan were built nearly 40 years ago and were scheduled to be shut down this year or next.

They have been subjected to an earthquake beyond what they were designed to handle.

Shortly afterward they were subjected to a tsunami.

They did not, have not and are not expected to have catastophic failure.

The explosions in the reactors were hydrogen explosions from superheated water/steam being released to reduce pressure on the containment vessel.

The explosions damaged the buildings.

The buildings were only designed to keep weather out, not radiation in.

The containment vessel is designed to contain melted fuel rods (meltdown)

At Chernobyl the Russians did not use a containment vessel (surprised?) allowing their hydrogen expolsion to scatter radioactive fuel rod pieces over a fairly wide area.

There is radiation from different sources, Any radiation that is released in steam and pressure is very minor and short lived compared to radiation from fuel rods.

Most of this information came from a blog written by Josef Oehmen. It's about 1/2 way down this page http://mitnse.com/
I read it from a different link that no longer works and will be spending some time this evening reading the top half of this link that seems to have more specific up to date information.

[Towntalk]

CAN'T YOU BE ADULT AND CIVIL IN YOUR RESPONSE. I WAS JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.

As far as I'm concerned I'd oppose new reactors UNTIL there could be ABSOLUTE PROOF that they could be operated SAFELY.

[irishbobcat]

how many people did die from radiation fallout years ago?

how many people do you want to die when one of our nuke plants fail?

if nuke power is so safe, please feel free to build a plant in your backyard.....

Have a glowing green day!

[Towntalk]

NOT TO BE ARGUMENTIVE but 66 some years ago the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities all but wiping them off the map, yet today they are thriving cities, and we haven't heard of any new cases of radiation poisoning in years.

Both cities have thriving economies ... so where did all that radiation go in 66 years.

Food is grown in gardens ... radiation free. People take baths and drink water with no ill effects from radiation.

I'll gladdly grant you that on the island where the U.S. did most of its tests there's quite another story but how many bombs were exploded there?

And what of Three Mile Island ... is it deserted today? Folks use that as an example but they neglect to mention its condition today.

[irishbobcat]

Sorry, Rick....I don't want nuke acciedents to happen in the US.....

You may think it's alright to trade off nuke deaths to light a light bulb, I don't.....



Davis-Besse opponents, "It can happen here."

Two weeks ago, four citizens groups were in Port Clinton,Ohio arguing before a panel appointed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that Davis-Besse should not be allowed to continue running for twenty years beyond its designed operating life. Today, in the wake of the nuclear disasters unfolding in Japan those groups had a stark warning for Ohio, Michigan and even Ontario. "It can happen here."

"It's ironic that in court, just two weeks ago, we were told repeatedly that we are not allowed to bring up the 'worst case scenario' of a plant meltdown because the NRC has decided that such a meltdown just can't happen," said Joseph DeMare member of the Wood County Green Party and long time nuclear foe. "Well, guess what? It's happened. It's important to point out that many of the people evacuated in Japan who are leaving behind their homes, clothes, even their pets, may never be able to return," said Mr. DeMare, "since some radioactive pollution, like Plutonium, stays deadly for tens of thousands of years."

"Just last week, all trains of the Davis-Besse Emergency Feedwater were knocked off line by the simple act of someone turning on a two-way radio," pointed out Michael J. Keegan of Don't Waste Michigan. Interference from a hand held radio disrupted the electronics in an incident reported to the NRC last week (Event Number 46653). The Emergency Feedwater was restored by First Energy. "But if that had happened during an emergency shut down, and those systems were needed and not available, the headlines today could be about the evacuation of Toledo, not Japan," said Mr. Keegan.

"There are many other triggers which could take a reactor into a Station Black Out (SBO) and loss of back up power such as Emergency Diesel Generators (EDG's). For example, in November of 1972, Davis-Besse was heavily flooded by a seiche event. In a seiche, strong winds cause large bodies of waters like Lake Erie to pour over their banks in a large wave. Fortunately, the plant had not yet started up. That same flood after start up could have been devastating.

"Other problems that have actually disrupted operations at local nuclear plants include:
tornadoes, which struck Davis-Besse 1998 and Fermi II in 2010;
an unexplained electrical explosion at Davis-Besse in 2010;
a stuck crane which dangled a 110 ton container full of highly radioactive waste mid-air directly over an irradiated fuel storage pool for 55 hours at Palisades nuclear plant on the Lake Michigan shoreline;
the electrical grid failure in August 2003; and
an Emergency Diesel Generator that was unavailable at Fermi for 20 years from 1986 through 2006 .

All nuclear reactors are also vulnerable to terrorist attack. On May 25, 2002, according to NORAD ( North American Aerospace Defense Command) a plane circled Fermi II and dipped close to the reactor.
There are many other examples.  So, while an earthquake may be unlikely, we have already experienced a multitude of near misses which could have triggered a major nuclear disaster in the Great Lakes."

"This is my home that I'm fighting for," added Anita Rios, Co-Chair of the Ohio Green Party and resident of Toledo. "I raised my family in the shadow of that plant, and I don't want them to have to live in fear of an accident as I have. To say that 'Oh it can never happen' in light of what is happening in Japan is just plain crazy. First Energy has down played and low balled the expense required to deal with a catastrophic event, and minimized the extent of the area that would be affected. We should point out that taxpayers would bear the responsibility of paying for a catastrophic event."

Terry Lodge, a long time opponent of a Davis-Besse and the lawyer representing the groups opposing the relicensing, had this to add, "Those of us who have been watching the nuclear industry have always known that a meltdown was only a matter of time. Regardless of reactor type, with aging comes pipe cracking, defects in zirconium cladding on the fuel rods, pump and valve failures, corrosion holes, rusting electrical switches and junctions, and failing backup diesel generators. The current Generic Environmental Impact Statement for relicensing US nukes is more than 14 years old. We are about to see huge areas of Japan made off-limits to human habitation for generations to come. The economic costs of this disaster are grossly understated. We, of course, prayed that it would never happen and our hearts go out to the people of Japan. But the question for us here in Ohio is are we willing to lose Toledo, Port Clinton, Bowling Green, Sandusky, and all the surrounding communities just so that First Energy can make more money?"

"We call for a moratorium on re-licensing of aged nuclear plants, and a moratorium on licensing of additional plants," concluded Ms. Rios, "and we ask that local governments and officials join us in calling for such a moratorium."

The four groups are Beyond Nuclear, Citizens' Environmental Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio.

[Rick Rowlands]

Dennis,

I know that you won't actually open your mind to learn, but in case you do, please watch this starting at the 28 minute mark.  This explains precisely the choice we have to make if coal and nuclear energy is to be eliminated in the US.  This is exactly what Dan and i have been trying to impress on you for the past few months.  If coal and nuclear are removed from the equation, what replaces them?

http://www.watchglennbeck.com/video/2011/march/glenn-beck-show-march-15-2011-obamas-priorities/

[Rick Rowlands]

Its not a question of safe or unsafe, but is one of tradeoffs.  Is the benefit of having electricity worth the potential risk of a nuclear accident?  If Japan did not have electricity, or limited amounts thereof, many of the people who are affected by the nuclear disaster would not even exist, or if they did exist they would live the life of a person in the third world.  Cheap abundant sources of energy is one of the main determining factors between a short, brutal life and a long, relatively easy life.  So really the question is, is it worth raising an entire population out of poverty if it means that at some point in the future a nuclear reactor may melt down? 

So far the containment systems have functioned as intended, and very little radiation has been escaping.  If there is any lesson to learn from this, it is that nuclear plants should not be sited in a location that is susceptible to tsunami damage. Even just siting the plant five miles further inland would have averted this catastrophe.  We will learn from this and the next generation of nuclear plants will not be affected by tsunamis.