Skip to main content

National Journal’s Blog - How does Japan's Crisis Affect America's Nuclear Industry?

By

Four folks have weighed in so far including NEI’s Marv Fertel:

All U.S. electric companies that operate nuclear power plants are taking action now to verify their capability to maintain safety even in the face of severe adverse events. The industry is verifying that the emergency response capability to withstand a total loss of electric power to a nuclear power plant will maintain safety at the facility even after extreme events. We also will verify our capability to withstand natural disasters such as earthquakes and flooding, as well as the impact of floods on systems inside and outside the plant.

…

The Fukushima accident certainly will prompt a review of nuclear energy facility capabilities in America and we support that reassessment. However, we recognize that America’s reactors – which are inspected daily by federal regulators – continue to exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) safety standards.

…

Labels:

Comments

Steve said…
The Las Vegas Business Press posted a similar poll:

Does the nuclear crisis in Japan make you believe a nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain would be dangerous?

Voting ends March 23. So far, results are about tied.

http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2011/03/16/poll/doc4d81315cc7fac753401429.txt
March 21, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Horizon3 said…
A suggestion for those involved in designing the backup systems.

Fore reactors in flood prone (tsunami) zones, encase the backup power source and its fuel supply in an air and water tight reinforced concrete enclosure.
Use the valve technology developed for submarines to isolate the engines intakes and exhaust from the outside environment. And elevate the intakes and exhaust stacks far enough off ground level to allow the engine to operate while the enclosure is completely submerged.
Only put one unit and its fuel supply and switchgear per enclosure, for redundancy.

I know elevating the units will be the first knee jerk reaction, but this is an inherently bad idea, generator sets of the size required to perform backup power duty for a nuclear unit are very large, and very heavy.
Anyone that has experience designing equipment for use in seismic zones knows that the farther off the ground something is, the more prone it is to be damaged by high degrees of earth movement. (Look to the bridge collapses in the Loma Prieta Quake in S.F.) Not to mention it makes servicing the unit that much more difficult.
March 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more