Things could still go wrong, but it looks likely, if not certain, that although the Missouri River floods that have been threatening Nebraska's Ft. Calhoun and Cooper nuclear power plants will put tremendous stress on both the systems and their operators, the immediate risk of a meltdown like those that occurred in Japan at Fukushima is small.
But it's also clear that if these same floods had occurred a year ago, before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission forced plant operators to upgrade safety standards, Ft. Calhoun, at least, would have been at serious meltdown risk. If the floods recede with no further damage to these plants, President Obama could, quite legitimately, claim that he saved Omaha. He probably won't, though, because the politics of doing so would reveal a deeper and more disturbing truth: while the Obama Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), led by Gregory Jaczko, has begun to take seriously the problems it inherited, America's fleet of 104 operating nuclear power plants is anything but safe.
Let's look at Ft. Calhoun and Cooper first. While a rubber berm at Ft. Calhoun has failed, causing flooding around the transformers and forcing the plant temporarily to rely on backup power, current projections for the flood peak are below the level of the newly reinforced levee system. The plant had also been shut down for other reasons in the spring and is not currently operating. Cooper is a bit higher and seems to be at less risk -- although any dam failure or other event greatly raising the levels of the river will mean that all bets are off.
All this is anything but reassuring. The flood level is expected to peak at 1,008 feet, below the current levee line of 1,014. But a year ago, the plant's flood protection was eight feet lower, meaning at 1,010 the main reactor area itself would have been flooded, and the NRC's inspectors concluded the plant would fail:
NRC inspectors concluded that at flooding levels above 1,008 feet, the plant "would experience a loss of offsite power and loss of intake structure" and water pumps providing essential cooling water to the plant. In that case, "the plant would be incapable of reaching cold shutdown" with normal operations -- a fundamental safety requirement imposed by the NRC...
But when the NRC, last October, demanded that the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) raise the flood barrier, the OPPD resisted and had to be forced to make the improvements over its strenuous objections. The final improvements were completed only on June 4.
And, as the OPPD has been pointing out in an attempt to reassure the public, this flooding is very different from the kind of unexpected, catastrophic event that hit Japan. Gary Gates, the CEO at Ft. Calhoun, stoutly and correctly insisted, "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..."
Well and good. But how well would the Nebraska reactors have withstood an unexpected flooding event, one caused, for example, by a terrorist attack on one of the upstream dams? Or how would any of the 15 reactors that are near the New Madrid Earthquake fault? Past earthquakes on the New Madrid were powerful enough change the course of the Mississippi River -- certainly a flooding event that makes what is happening this week in Nebraska look like a mud puddle -- and those 15 nuclear plants are almost all located along major river systems.
The good news is that it appears that the NRC has started taking this more seriously. Since Fukushima, the NRC has been reviewing its whole approach to safety. The agency will get the results of the staff review on July 12, with public release a week later, but the agency is signaling that, in the words of Martin Virgilio, deputy executive director for reactor and preparedness programs, "What we once thought was not necessary for adequate protection, may in fact become ..."
Among the key issues flagged are that many safety precautions against the worst disasters -- in which multiple systems fail simultaneously -- are voluntary, not mandatory, and that many plant operators do not consistently observe them. Additionally, it's now obvious that the kinds of failures that would result from intentional attacks were not adequately analyzed. In spite of this, the NRC's ingrained culture of deferring to utilities and defending the indefensible continues. Recently, for example, spokespeople have asserted that the probability of more extreme weather events because of climate change does not pose a risk because new nuclear power plants are built to withstand those kinds of weather extremes. The real issue, of course, is not new plants, but existing ones.
The bottom line is that how the NRC handles the new safety review is, arguably, one of the most important responsibilities facing the Obama administration. Will it get the attention it deserves?
Follow Carl Pope on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlPope
Nebraska nuclear plant threatened by flooding is safe, scientists group finds
Nuclear Plants and Disasters: NRC Inspection Results
The shutdown in April was due to preemptive planning for flooding,as they were refueling and had the option to shutdown:
http://nebraskanukewatch.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-york-times-chimes-in-on-ne-plant.html
Ok,just to be clear here- the Ft.Calhoun and Cooper plant have had problems leading up to this as well- Ft.Calhoun has had a fire on June 7 for example.
The way I read the NRC statement is that the plant would have had to use backup generators to get to a cold shut down. True this may not be normal but it would not directly be a cause of a ‘meltdown’ which Pope suggests.
There are two facts that Greenpeace and Pope can’t refute. First, we would now have much safer working generation three and four reactors if it where not for the anti-nuclear movement. Second, the US standard for nuclear safety is known as the best in the world. That is really saying something for western industry that has never allowed one death to occur from the use of radiation. (FOR THOSES WHO DISAGREE PLEASE NAME ONE LEGITIMATE PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT SAYS OTHER WISE) US nuclear safety standards stands in great contrast to Greenpeace greatest supporters the coal industry which kills 500,000 people every year just with uncontained airborne particulates.
Viva the nuclear renaissance,
Jfarmer9
The dams and levies were perfectly capable of handling the rising water. The flooding was due to a change in the Corps of Engineer’s mission from protecting lives and property to protecting habitat. Given that the existence of the nuclear power plant predates this policy change by several decades I think it is fair to put the onus of this near tragedy on the policy makers, not the nuclear industry.
In the 1990’s the Army Corps of Engineers “officially shift[ed] the priorities of the Missouri River dam system from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.”
“The dams could further have easily handled the additional runoff without the need to inundate a sizeable chunk of nine states. The Corps admits in the MWCM that they deliberately embrace this risk each year in order to maximize their re-ordered priorities.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_purposeful_flooding_of_americas_heartland.html
Such a change is all well and good but we need to recognize the consequences and prepare for them.
"Releases at higher-than-normal rates early in the season that cannot be supported by runoff forecasting techniques is inconsistent with all System purposes other than flood control. All of the other authorized purposes depend upon the accumulation of water in the System rather than the availability of vacant storage space."
"other than flood control" The releases called for by those concerned about the environmental consequences of the poorly thought out damming of rivers, actually provided more space for all of this flood water. Had they been holding back as much as they normally do the situation would be imminently worse.
They're worried that they would have TOO LITTLE water in the system in meeting the demands of the environmental concerns caused by the thoughtless construction of useless dams.
Replace all the old junk on site with the new cost $1B/Gw running on nuclear waste.. Ten years from now no more fossil fuels or old clunky nuke plants. Rate of return on investment over 40%.
Call your local politicians and ask why they have sold out their country to Big Oil in exchange for campaign donations and other favors. Are they not ashamed of themselves?
Solar and wind power will NEVER be able to replace these coal plants, according to every qualified (non-biased) expert.
Anti-nuclear = pro-coal
Sorry,we get rid of the nukes and the higher price of energy will force energy conservation- we just can't imagine the free market working here, though we claim it works every where else
'Recently, for example, spokespeople have asserted that the probability of more extreme weather events because of climate change does not pose a risk because new nuclear power plants are built to withstand those kinds of weather extremes. The real issue, of course, is not new plants, but existing ones.'
You get to say this after you go on record supporting a Gen III + plant being built to replace an existing plant. Before that, it's a bit like blocking auto manufacturers from installing seat belts and then complaining about the risks of being thrown from a car in a collision: disingenuous at best.
Also, Carl, allowing the Sierra Club to take donations from natural gas companies while mounting disingenuous attacks on one of its competitors does nothing for your credibility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/why-nuclear-gets-more-lov_b_471606.html
includes a good natural gas price chart.
$3 billion/ year JUST ON cable boxes....
http://bojack.org/2011/06/worth_a_thousand_words.html
(Recent pictures of flooded Ft Calhoun NP)
BUT NOT ZERO.
The fact that we're even discussing this illustrates that nuclear power plants are inherently unsafe and not worth the risks.
No, it's all Nuke Power's got - "there's some percentage chance we aren't going to melt down this month."
I don't need to say much, Fukushima says very much more for me, not to mention all the other disasters that have already happened or are on the verge of happening - like the about-to-be-flooded plant you just might have read about.
Many of our 104 nuclear plants cannot withstand long-term grid power outages.
NASA and the NOAA warn collapse of the power grid for months is possible as a result of solar storm emissions.
After about a month, any nuclear plant affected may begin to spew huge amounts of radioactivity into surrounding communities.
See www.aesopinstitute.org for an overview of the potential nightmare.
The two flooded plants in Nebraska may still be at hazard and should serve as a wake-up call for the country.
Meeting the challenge can greatly accelerate decentralized power and cheap green electricity.
To the surprise of almost everyone, cost-competitive green power is in the birth canal.
No, I believe this is mistaken because it suggests that some of our nuclear power plants can withstand long-term grid power outages, and that's false; none can.
And why, prey tell, does Los Alamos have 30,000 drums of Plutonium laced newk material stored above ground, with the whole town now being evacuated?
Think, and think again!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/los-alamos-fire-epa-testing-radiation/story?id=13953953
". . .30,000 55-gallon steel drums of plutonium-laced waste, which are stacked in tents awaiting removal to a permanent underground storage site." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8606536/Los-Alamos-nuclear-laboratory-under-siege-from-raging-wildfire.html
30,000 or 20,000 drums, the real question is why nuclear waste is being stored in steel drums & above ground in an area known for fires? And why STEEL drums? If correct one has to wonder how long has the waste been stored in them? What is the condition of the drums? And why so many of them if they are awaiting removal? Sounds like the drums have been there for awhile & the govt is trying to get by on the cheap.
Dry cask storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
Nuclear Cask Application Information
http://www.nuclead.com/leadcaskapps.html
Direct Scientific - Radiation Shielding
http://www.drct.com/dss/shielding.html