Skip to main content

Some Facts About Station Blackout That David Lochbaum Didn't Tell The New York Times

Some facts UCS left out.

If you were concerned with the safety of America's nuclear energy facilities, I could understand why this blog post from Matt Wald at NY Times Green might cause you a bit of pause. In it, David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists makes the claim that industry and the NRC ignored the possibility of a Fukushima-like incident in the U.S. for decades. His proof: a document published by an NRC analyst in 2007 that posited how a flood, earthquake or other extreme event could cause a loss of AC power at a nuclear energy facility that could lead to multiple reactor meltdowns.

Sounds scary, doesn't it? Unfortunately, the folks at UCS left out a couple of facts when they talked to Wald that might have spoiled that narrative. The fact is, NRC and the industry have been working on the issue for decades. Here's NEI's Steve Kerekes, who left the following in the comment string after the post:
The article fails to cite a number of relevant facts, including these: 1) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission finalized the Station Blackout Rule to provide further assurance that a loss of emergency AC power systems would not adversely affect public health and safety in 1988. That’s a full two decades before the creation of the documents in question. 2) Over the course of the more than 3,500 years of combined reactor operations in the United States, the one and only station blackout in our facilities’ history lasted 37 minutes. That too was decades ago.

Notwithstanding those facts, the U.S. nuclear energy industry – demonstrating its commitment to safe and reliable operations – has made safety improvements on a continuing basis to provide additional layers of defense in depth. These include post-9/11 measures put in place to better equip facilities to respond to explosions and large fires, and the post-Fukushima enhancements (centered on acquisition of portable safety equipment) currently being implemented to improve facilities’ ability to respond safely and effectively to extreme events, regardless of their cause.
Click here to take a look at the station blackout rule that Kerkes refers to in the text. If you scroll down to the end of the document, you'll see the date June 21, 1988 spelled out in black and white.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Fine ... except what Lochbaum said was that NRC and the industry had not addressed the risk of MULTI-UNIT station blackouts, i.e., those that affect more than one reactor. This post devastates a straw man.
SteveK9 said…
Anonymous:

Ohhhh, MULTI-UNIT, hah hah!, caught you. Give me a break.

You see no relationship in protecting a reactor during a station blackout if there is more than one reactor? That's assuming what you are writing is even accurate.

If I see the name David Lochbaum in a story I know I can skip that paragraph.
Anonymous said…
I'm not saying that. Are you saying that there are no complications in multi-unit SBOs that are not present in single-unit SBOs? Fukushima proves otherwise.

Nice well-poisoning to avoid the issue, too. Are you aware Lochbaum has worked for both the industry and NRC, in addition to NGOs?
Atomikrabbit said…
"Are you aware Lochbaum has worked for both the industry and NRC"

He got himself hired into the NRC as a simulator instructor at their training center in Chattanooga to embellish his resume and get the government to pay for his move back to the area he wanted to retire (has a NE degree from U Tenn).

After putting in the requisite year to avoid payback of the relocation bonuses, he quit.
Williamson said…
This is just more of the same where Lochbaum is concerned. In 1999, he badgered the NRC into arranging a public meeting in Baton Rouge on the topic of fuel clad performance at the River Bend and Perry plants. Extensive, costly preparations were made by the utilities to expand the ability of interested parties to participate in the meeting, including live two-way video feeds to three remote sites. Given the support enjoyed by the industry in this part of the country, there was little patience among the attendees for his flimsy arguments to shut down the plants. David read his prepared statement and beat a hasty retreat without answering any questions. He later received a letter from NRC admonishing him for his failure to “fully participate” in the opportunity to explain his position.
Anonymous said…
Wow, he failed to speak long enough at a public meeting 14 years ago. Logically, therefore, every claim he makes from that time forward is invalid. Nice argument.

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …