Des Moines Register: "Nuclear plants need scrutiny, not hysteria"

I thought I was reading Yomiuri or Asahi or the Japanese government's press conference transcript back in March and April.

But no, this is a June 29 Des Moines Register editorial, telling readers "Don't be irrational, don't be hysterical, and don't you dare be anti-nuke". And don't listen to those "baseless rumors":

Nuclear plants need scrutiny, not hysteria

"Right now the plants are safe."

That's what the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said of the two nuclear power plants along the Missouri River in Nebraska after recent flooding. There have been no "nuclear releases." Vital systems to ensure safety are protected. Flood waters are not expected to become unmanageable.

Gov. Terry Branstad said that state officials are monitoring the plants and that the public should not worry.

Yet some people worry.

People worry because just the phrase "nuclear power plant" conjures thoughts of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. People worry because the world is still watching as Japan deals with the Fukushima nuclear power plant from both a human health and economic perspective.

Iowans worry because the Nebraska plants are separated from us by only a river rather than the Pacific Ocean.

A healthy dose of concern about nuclear energy is necessary to help keep this country's power plants are safe. The United States must remain dedicated to rigorous scrutiny of plant safety regulations and emergency measures.

Yet the public's concern should not be irrational or used to feed an anti-nuclear energy agenda or imply that the U.S. government is lying to Americans.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what is happening online where anything goes and supposed reporters aren't held accountable for blatant misinformation. One online newspaper in Pakistan reported that a Russian nuclear energy agency has obtained information about an accident at one of the Nebraska plants. It stated President Barack Obama ordered media not to report the accident and imposed a "no-fly" zone over the plant because of radiation leaks.

"The rumors have been as difficult to combat as the rising floodwaters," said the spokesman for the NRC.

The situation in Nebraska -- like the situation in Japan -- is an opportunity to learn and inform conversations about nuclear energy.

This country has 104 nuclear power plants in 31 states, including Iowa. What's going on in Nebraska is a reminder of the need to ensure they are safe and there are plans in place to respond in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

They are also a reminder of the importance this country must place on protecting key areas -- including those with nuclear plants -- from flooding.

While the U.S. must continue to focus on conservation and cultivating alternative sources of energy like wind, the reality is nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Along with coal, petroleum, natural gas and wind, it is an important part of this country's energy portfolio.

That portfolio must be more, not less, diverse. As the world has seen in Japan, a disrupted energy supply can lead to an economic crisis.

Americans use a lot of energy. It has to come from somewhere, and providing it comes with risks. Yet we do not stop drilling for oil because there is an oil spill. We do not stop mining for coal because of a cave-in.

We cannot allow fears about nuclear energy -- unfounded fears, as of now in Nebraska -- scare us away from this important power source.

I particularly like the last three paragraphs.

A disrupted energy supply in Japan is not because of nuclear power plant shutdowns, but because too many thermal and hydro power generating plants had been shut down. Rolling blackouts were intentional, to teach the Japanese the lesson - "nuclear power is necessary". Besides, an economic crisis is the last thing that ordinary people in Japan care about right now. (I don't know about the politicians and big power company execs.)

So you don't stop drilling for oil because there's an oil spill. You do not stop mining for coal because of a cave-in. So you don't stop nuclear power generation just because a nuke plant has 3 meltdowns and releases 800,000 terabecquerels of radioactive iodine, cesium, strontium, plutonium, and poison the countryside and waterways and sicken the population for decades. That's such a small price to pay for a growing economy, according to the editor of the paper.

Unfounded fears?

This can't be written by an American in America. This has got to be written by Yomiuri... It's started to feel like a "Groundhog Day"...

Tweet

Raw Footage of Fort Calhoun Nuke Plant Fly-by from AP

Tweet

Fort Calhoun Nuke Plant: Borated Water in Reactor, Spent Fuel Pool, Normal Procedure, Says Plant CEO

Bits and pieces about the Fort Calhoun Nuke Plant in Nebraska:

• They are using boric acid in the reactor and the spent fuel pool (CNN);

• The "waterproof" turns out to be "aqua dams" and levees in front of the buildings that house key systems (CNN);

• Spent fuel dry casks are outside the flood protected area "because they are sealed and bolted down" (Iowa Independent);

• 2/3 of the active fuel rods are still inside the reactor ("baseless rumor" floating in cyberspace).

On CNN interview, the CEO of the plant says he and his people are battling "blowing in the wind" rumors like the Japanese government over Fukushima I Nuke Plant and radiation contamination. But if you look at the accompanying video, it makes you wonder: why weren't they better prepared, if this flooding was totally expected and it is business as usual, as the CEO tries to tell us?

(By the way, I don't think this video is what CNN intended to upload. The only intended part seems to be the brief interview with the CEO. The rest of the video shows punctured aqua dam, pumping of water from behind the sandbags, not very assuring.)

From CNN (6/28/2011):

Fort Calhoun, Nebraska (CNN) -- Tim Nellenbach is on a mission as he shows a small group of journalists around his workplace. The manager of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant and his colleagues are bent on dispelling rumors about the condition of their facility: rumors about a meltdown, about a loss of power. The rumors are patently false, they say, and it's frustrating to have to deal with them while also battling a genuine crisis.

These officials are also acutely aware of comparisons to the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami in Japan in March, which crippled a nuclear power plant there, leading to the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986.

"There's no likelihood of a Fukushima-like incident here," Nellenbach says.

So does Gary Gates, CEO of the Fort Calhoun plant.

"It is not another Fukushima. The difference is the rapid flooding that occurred at Fukushima. This was a predicted event, to a degree, from the Corps of Engineers. The floodwaters at Fort Calhoun are outside the plant. There is no water inside the plant. The reactor is covered with borated water. The spent fuel is covered with borated water, which we want it to be. That's intentional. That's where it should be. The floodwaters are outside Fort Calhoun, not inside," Gates explains.

Still, there is a genuine crisis at the plant. Floodwaters from the swollen Missouri River have engulfed this facility. The parking lots are underwater. The river's fast-paced currents are swirling against several buildings in this compound. Catwalks had to be constructed to allow workers to move from one building to the next. The buildings housing the reactor core, the spent fuel rods and other crucial components are protected by small levees and aqua-berms. But outside those barriers, the water is at least 2 feet above ground level.

The Fort Calhoun plant has 40-foot deep spent fuel pool underground, as well as the above-ground dry cask storage. (Information from wiki)

The Iowa Independent reported on June 24 that the dry casks storage facility is not protected from the flood, because the dry casks are bolted down and secure.

As for the baseless rumor that the 2/3 of the nuclear fuel rods are still inside the reactor, I'd say that was true after all, if they are putting boric acid in the cooling water.

The NRC chairman Jacko, who toured the site on Monday, had these discomforting words to say, according to CNN's article:

"In the end," Jaczko said, "this challenge is yours."

That's eerily reminiscent of the Japanese regulators who have been basically saying this to TEPCO for over 3 months.

I also seem to remember it took TEPCO some time till it finally admitted that the Reactors 5 and 6 were fully loaded with nuclear fuel rods when the earthquake and tsunami hit at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, even though they were still in the scheduled maintenance.

I also remember those official and unofficial "debunkers" going after journalists and bloggers who spread "rumors" in the early days of the Fukushima accident.

Tweet

Fort Calhoun Nuke Plant: Flood Water Has "Seeped" into the Turbine Building But "Everything's Under Control"

I guess it all depends on the definition of the word "seep".

And all the buildings at the plant were supposed to be "watertight", according to the NRC.

From AP (6/27/2011):

Floodwater seeps into Nebraska nuke plant building

OMAHA (AP) -- Missouri River floodwater seeped into the turbine building at a nuclear power plant near Omaha on Monday, but plant officials said the seepage was expected and posed no safety risk because the building contains no nuclear material.

An 8-foot-tall, water-filled temporary berm protecting the plant collapsed early Sunday. Vendor workers were at the plant Monday to determine whether the 2,000 foot berm can be repaired.

Omaha Public Power District spokesman Jeff Hanson said pumps were handling the problem at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station and that "everything is secure and safe." The plant, about 20 miles north of Omaha, has been closed for refueling since April. Hanson said the berm's collapse didn't affect the shutdown or the spent fuel pool cooling.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor Dricks described the situation as stable. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko plans to inspect the Fort Calhoun plant on Monday as part of a pre-arranged visit to Nebraska.

(The article continues.)

Doesn't it all sound familiar for people who have been following Fukushima?

Hypothetical progression of the minor "incident" at Fort Calhoun, after the established Fukushima model:

"Everything under control, buildings are watertight."
"Well, there was some "seepage" in the turbine building, but everything is secure and safe. It's all part of the plan."
"Well, the turbine building is actually flooded, but the reactor building is secure."
"Well, there's some water puddles in the reactor building, but the Containment Vessel is secure."
"Well, ....."

In this picture of the plant (H/T Dominique), I see sandbags against some openings. Is this what they meant by "watertight"? (More photos at this link.)

Tweet