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 …

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…