Skip to main content

“A Review of Our Nuclear Plants Is an Appropriate Step…”

We shouldn’t forget through all the coverage of Japan that the nuclear energy industry is still moving along here. It would be foolish for the American industry not to apply lessons learned as soon as the apparent lessons begin to reveal themselves – and the industry and Nuclear Regulatory Commission are prepared to do this.

NEI Shares Obama Call to Incorporate Safety Lessons From Japan Accident

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 17, 2011—The following is a statement by Marvin S. Fertel, president and chief executive officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute, on President Obama’s remarks today regarding the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan.

“We appreciate the President’s leadership during this difficult time for the people of Japan. Like the President, our industry recognizes that there is concern about the accident in Japan and we are providing resources and expertise to the Japanese industry to return the Fukushima plant to a safe condition. This is a very serious matter in Japan, but we echo the assessment of health experts that there is currently no health threat to the United States.

“A review of our nuclear plants is an appropriate step after an event of this scale and we expect that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct its own assessment. The industry’s highest priority is the safe operation of 104 reactors in 31 states and we will incorporate lessons learned from this accident at American nuclear energy facilities. The commitment, along with the strict regulation of the industry by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has made U.S. reactors the safest in the world.

“Even before we can get lessons learned from Japan, all companies that produce electricity at nuclear power plants are verifying their capability to maintain safety even in the face of severe adverse events.”

(This will appear on the NEI site soon.)

“A review of our nuclear plants is an appropriate step…” may seem an understatement, but the actions the industry is taking are anything but understated:

The U.S. nuclear energy industry has already started an assessment of the events in Japan and is taking steps to ensure that U.S. reactors can respond to events that may challenge safe operation of the facilities. These actions include:

  • Verify each plant’s capability to manage major challenges, such as aircraft impacts and losses of large areas of the plant due to natural events, fires or explosions. Specific actions include testing and inspecting equipment required to mitigate these events, and verifying that qualifications of operators and support staff required to implement them are current.
  • Verify each plant’s capability to manage a total loss of off-site power. This will require verification that all required materials are adequate and properly staged and that procedures are in place, and focusing operator training on these extreme events.
  • Verify the capability to mitigate flooding and the impact of floods on systems inside and outside the plant. Specific actions include verifying required materials and equipment are properly located to protect them from flood.
  • Perform walk-downs and inspection of important equipment needed to respond successfully to extreme events like fires and floods. This work will include analysis to identify any potential that equipment functions could be lost during seismic events appropriate for the site, and development of strategies to mitigate any potential vulnerabilities.

You can see the echoes of Fukushima in this list and a recognition that some events are more likely here than in Japan. The industry and the NRC already account for events like earthquakes and tsunamis in design specifications and regulations, as Japan no doubt does; still, a further accounting to develop ways to provide a greater ability to mitigate natural catastrophes can only be for the good.

A section I did not reprint here says “The accident at Fukushima Daiichi was caused, in part, by extraordinary natural forces that were outside the plant’s required design parameters.” This is so – the events in Japan were much beyond anything ever seen there.

But nuclear plants are constructed to withstand natural disasters much more potent than those historically seen in an area. After all, the most powerful earthquake will always be superseded in time. So the nuclear energy industry isn’t looking to create a regime to counter natural disaster but to enhance a regime that has been sterling to date in operating though fury and tempest.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…