New Risks for Nuclear Plants Reactors in Central, Eastern U.S. Face Greater Earthquake Threat, Study Finds

By REBECCA SMITH

Nuclear reactors in the central and eastern U.S. face previously unrecognized threats from big earthquakes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday. Experts said upgrading the plants to withstand more substantial earth movements would be costly and could force some to close.

Threat by Land and Sea

Dozens of nuclear reactors operate in earthquake-prone regions around the world. Among them, least 34 are in high-hazard areas; 17 of those are within a mile of a coastline.

View Interactive

The NRC said it would require nuclear-plant operators to conduct new seismic studies for all 96 reactors in eastern and central states to determine if the plants could withstand the shaking predicted by the government's new seismic model.

Updating the U.S. survey of past seismic activity became urgent after a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and tsunami devastated northeastern Japan last March. The event overwhelmed the defenses of reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site, causing widespread damage and radioactive releases. The earthquake exceeded the level for which the reactors had been designed, calling into question earlier seismic assessments.

The NRC plans to give nuclear-plant operators four years to re-evaluate risks by running complex calculations for all structures, systems and components. By law, nuclear plants must be able to withstand earthquakes "without functional impairment of those features necessary to shut down the reactor, maintain the station in safe condition and prevent undue risk to the health and safety of the public."

The seismic study "is an important piece of work but it doesn't tell us what needs to be done," said Alex Marion, vice president for nuclear operations at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade organization. "The model will need to be applied to specific sites and that will take awhile."

Critics said regulators are moving too slowly. "The NRC does not need a new model—it needs a spine," said Dave Lochbaum, director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Chattanooga, Tenn. The NRC already has sufficient evidence to require immediate upgrades to dozens of plants, he said, adding that further delay amounts to a "bureaucratic stall tactic."

The NRC has said it needs more information before requiring upgrades. NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said it was possible "that operators will do the analyses and say, 'Our existing safety margin covers it, so no upgrades are needed.' We just don't know yet."

Any required retrofits could be expensive. "To go back into some of these older plants and deal with seismic issues might end up costing more than the plants are worth," said Stephen Maloney, a partner at Azoulas Risk Advisors in Boston, a consulting firm that works with the nuclear industry. That could force such plants to close.

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

The Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tenn.

The seismic model could influence new seismic maps the U.S. Geological Survey is expected to issue next year, and could affect building codes and insurance rates.

The new model was jointly developed by the NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy and an industry-funded research group, the Electric Power Research Institute. The model incorporates information on about a thousand earthquakes that previously weren't cataloged. Those were determined through written records, geologic data, carbon dating and other methods. The research brings the total to nearly 3,300 quakes in the region since 1568.

The model shows increased hazards at many locations. For example, it indicates that the single worst earthquake likely to happen in a 10,000-year period in Chattanooga, Tenn., would be nearly twice as damaging to structures as previously calculated. Scientists found similar hazards at six other locations where they did spot checks: Houston; Manchester, N.H.; Jackson, Miss.; Topeka, Kan.; central Illinois; and Savannah, Ga.

Atlanta-based Southern Co. hopes to build two reactors in central Georgia, about 100 miles from Savannah. The company took the latest seismic information into account and believes the reactors will meet the standard of the new model, said B.L. "Pete" Ivey, a vice president. But Southern will need to run calculations for its existing reactors to see if they meet the standard, he said.

Because regulators worry about "low probability/high consequence" events like the one in Japan, much seismic research now is focused on the central and eastern U.S., an area once seen as less active geologically than the West. There are 96 reactors in the region, compared with just eight in the West.

Scientists, using computers, satellites and field data, now know there have been many huge earthquakes in the central and eastern regions of the country. And shock waves travel far in the East because the Earth's crust is more rigid there than in the West.

Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com

SONGS release of radiation

ACTION ALERT: This my letter the city of San Clemente this morning, if you live in a 100 mile area I hope you while join in writing them now. Email at: George"

Dear George and members of the city Council,

Yesterday's emergency shutdown at SONGS is yet another release of harmful radiation to our children and community. But we don't know exactly what was released, how long are how it will affect our citizens. It is high time that an epidemiology study is done to assess what's going on in our community because of San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station on going release of radiation. Also if it is long overdue that the city & county take responsibility for a radiation monitoring system so that our citizens will know exactly what is being released and how long and at what levels. We know SONGS has a system, but they do not share this important information with our town, why is that permitted? We are the one's who need to know. WE DEMAND ACTION NOW BEFORE IT IS TO LATE!

San Onofre Nuclear Reactor Shut Down After Leak

Radioactive water spills into containment dome, yet there is no danger to the public, officials say.

http://sanclemente.patch.com/articles/operators-shut-down-san-onofre-one-reactor-unit-as-a-precaution#_=

Here we go again. The public relations experts step up to reassure the public that all is well. Meanwhile, I get this message from a whistle-blower, " So much for installing brand new steam generators for 800 million. SCE is really down playing the seriousness of this."

Someday we will hear the sirens go off, and it won't be another false alarm. In fact, I sit here wondering if this may actually develop into the dreaded nuclear nightmare. Is this our Fukushima? If not, it is only a matter of time. We must understand that the protective measures that were once in place no longer exist. It is up to you and me, the people standing in harms way, to demand a shutdown of these unnecessary reactors that threaten the livelihood and well being of more than 8 million people, all for 7% of our energy.

Let's make them prove they are safe to operate and that they have addressed the lessons learned from Fukushima before we allow them to continue on the reckless path they are on. How many more warnings will we get? Do we really need a total meltdown in America in order to accept the reality that nuclear power is extremely dangerous? Are we the ones that are going to have to be sacrificed as the example that Americans can no longer ignore?

Unfortunately, I am beginning to believe that we won't take any serious steps to avoid a Fukushima-like event until it happens in our country. With all the warning signs, no one will be surprised when it does take place here. It is only a matter of time. San Onofre, with a safety record ten times worse than the industry norm, sitting next to a fault line exceeding the design basis for this nuclear power plant that is reaching its intended 40 year lifespan in 2013, is a very likely candidate for failure.

That is why we are planning an event to remember Fukushima on the upcoming anniversary. People need to remember the lessons that the Japanese are still enduring. The no-go zone in Japan is a 12.5 mile radius and it is estimated that it will take 40 years before it might be safe to return (if ever). The cost of cleanup is already in excess of $120 Billion.

Can you imagine that happening here? No use of the main freeway between LA and San Diego, a major military base rendered useless, thousands of homes and businesses that can't be insured against such a disaster, all the people left homeless and with very few possessions, for who knows how long. The financial disaster alone would be staggering, let alone the deaths and disease and environmental degradation that are more difficult to substantiate or quantify.

Just yesterday, I participated in a webinar with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who wanted some public feedback on the proposition that we store highly radioactive waste on site for another two or three hundred years. What are these people charged with the public's safety thinking about other than what is best for the industry?

Let's move away from this outdated dangerous technology and replace it with safe and sustainable options that will lead us to a brighter future. We can live without it as seen in this very moment when no power is coming from San Onofre. It won't be nearly as bad as they make it out to be.

Please join the people's movement to shut down our nuclear power plant before it is too late. Go to http://sanonofresafety.org/, or send an email to gary@sanclementegreen.org to get involved, to do your part, because those that you think you can count on are not on your side. Stand with us. Go with the precautionary principle. There is too much at stake for too little in return. No Fukushimas here. We know better and so do you.

San Onofre: An Accident Waiting To Happen

Watch Nuclear Aftershocks on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Travel to three continents to explore the debate about nuclear power: Is it safe?

What are the alternatives? And could a Fukushima-style disaster happen in the U.S.?

One man's fear monger is another mans change agent...

A must watch video!

San Onofre Long Term High-level Nuke Waste Repository

Residents Organized for Safe Environment (ROSE) Statement of Concern:

ROSE believes that the NRC’s stated alternative to Change the Waste Confidence away from the small step approach to the long-term Waste Confidence program for 200 years to make nuclear power plant sites into nuclear waste dumps for 200 years is shortsighted and completely without regard for the safety of the millions of citizens who populate the areas around these power plants.
This type of decision by the NRC, demands that the public take action to secure its own safety from the hazards of such a nuclear waste dump in their vicinity wherever it is located. It calls into question the very mandate itself of the NRC “Protecting People and the Environment” and leads us to the conclusion that the NRC is no longer capable of Protecting the People and the Environment. This may mean it is time to consider disbanding the NRC and forming a new protective agency led by the citizens themselves who have no vested interest in protecting the nuclear industry.

NRC Draft Report for Comment Dec 2011 Waste storage policy. Background and Preliminary Assumptions For an Environmental Impact Statement.—Long-Term Waste Confidence Update. States
6. Alternatives Under the National Environmental Policy Act
“The proposed action is a change to the Commission.’s current Waste Confidence decision and rule, which requires the Commission to revisit the issue of Waste Confidence every five to ten years. As part of this process, the Commission has revised Waste Confidence twice since 1984, and each time has expanded the temporal scope of its analysis by a few decades. This long-term Waste Confidence update would move away from this small-step approach, and would extend the temporal scope of Waste Confidence by as many as 200 years. The EIS will include an analysis of the impacts of four storage scenarios in order to assess the magnitude and range of impacts and the safety of extended storage. Section 8 of this report discusses these scenarios. As with the current Waste Confidence rule and decision, the Waste Confidence EIS will generically describe the potential impacts of extended storage and will assume that the storage of spent nuclear fuel will continue to be a regulated activity in the future. Unlike the current Waste Confidence rule and decision, this long-term Waste Confidence EIS will not require reconsideration of a possible update to the rule and decision every five to ten years.

The no-action alternative is to continue to review the Waste Confidence decision and rule for updates every 5 to 10 years.”
http://residentsorganizedforasafeenvironment.wordpress.com/

Will SCE and PG&E do to CA what Entergy is doing to VT?

The New York Times is reporting that the federal judge in a lawsuit has determined that Vermont Yankee does NOT have to close as per the state's wishes. In a decision that could have ramifications everywhere there are states' agreements with nuclear utility companies -- including California -- the judge felt that the overwhelming reasons anyone wanted the reactor shut down were radiological safety concerns, and those were the purvey of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ONLY. The NRC has already allowed the dilapidated old Fukushima look-alike to run for another 20 years to age 60 -- the NRC decided this even as its sister plant in Fukushima was melting down and the NRC didn't know (or care) why (it still doesn't)!

The state of Vermont is expected to appeal.

NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/science/earth/vermont-cant-shut-down-nuclear-plant-judge-rules.html

Cancer Risk To Children Near Nukes

Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds analyzes cancer rates for young children near Fukushima using the National Academy of Science's BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) VII Report. Based on BEIR VII, Fairewinds determines that at least one in every 100 young girls will develop cancer for every year they are exposed to 20 millisieverts [millisievert (1 mSv = 0.001 Sv)] of radiation. The 20-millisievert/ year figure is what the Japanese government is currently calculating as the legal limit of radiological exposure to allow habitation of contaminated areas near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. In this video, Fairewinds introduces additional analysis by Ian Goddard showing that the BEIR VII report underestimates the true cancer rates to young children living near Fukushima Daiichi. Looking at the scientific data presented by Mr. Goddard, Fairewinds has determined that at least one out of every 20 young girls (5%) living in an area where the radiological exposure is 20 millisieverts for five years will develop cancer in their lifetime.