Reasons to Doubt the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

This morning's edition of the Richmond Times-Dispatch has a short piece reporting that the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League is moving to block the construction of a third reactor at North Anna in Virginia in the wake of the August earthquake on the East coast.

Here's what the folks at Dominion Virginia Power have to say about the action:

Dominion Virginia Power, owner of two nuclear reactors at the North Anna plant, said the earthquake has no bearing on the licensing of a third unit, which would be built to a seismic standard more than four times that of the existing units.

"We have worked through the seismic requirements for Unit 3," utility spokesman Rick Zuercher said Thursday night. "They're stringent and would have well withstood what happened at North Anna with the existing units."

While the ground vibration from the quake exceeded design limits for the two existing reactors, the utility said the plant suffered no significant damage.

I can't help but shake my head every time I read something from the folks at BREDL. From my experience, they're just not credible, something we've pointed out here at NEI Nuclear Notes in a number of instances:

Something tells me that the folks at the Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel will take these points into account when they consider BREDL's latest complaint.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Whoa. "While the ground vibration from the quake exceeded design limits for the two existing reactors, the utility said the plant suffered no significant damage." Why the qualifier "significant"? Wouldn't the utility have said, "no damage" if that were the case? Would it not be prudent to fix the existing units to withstand a recent quake before building a third?

November 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog