the 5 worst nuclear reactors in the united states: an excerpt from nuclear roulette

7/28/2019 The 5 Worst Nuclear Reactors in the United States: An Excerpt from Nuclear Roulette

1/22


2/22

18

Five of the Worst US Reactors

Hopefully, nations will refuse to accept a situation in which nuclear accidents

actually do occur, and, if at all possible, they will do something to correct a

system which makes them likely.

HERMAN KAHN, US NUCLEAR STRATEGIST

THE CONSEQUENCES of poor regulatory oversight can be seen in the operat-

ing histories of the countrys nuclear reactors. Te following five facilities are

representative. Many other nuclear power sites around the country have equally

disturbing records of poor performance, emergency shutdowns, and close calls.

Davis-Besse: Beset by Holes, Cracks, Close CallsFirst licensed to operate in 1977, Ohios Davis-Besse nuclear power station

was supposed to be decommissioned when its 40-year license expired in 2017.

But operator FirstEnergy (like every other owner of one of the rickety reactors

in Americas creaky fleet) applied to the NRC for a 20-year life extension.

Te potential extension would be a concern even if the aging reactor (located

20 miles east of oledo) had racked up a perfect history of safe operation.

Davis-Besse has not. Tis plant is not just an accident waiting to happen,it is a place where extremely serious accidents have happened . . . repeatedly.

Te NRCs own records recognize Davis-Besse as one of the most

dangerous reactors in the United States. Between 1969 and 2005, this single

plant experienced six out of the 34 reported significant accident sequence

precursorstriple the rate reported at any other US nuclear plant. Te

problems began on September 24, 1977, after the plant had been operating

for only six months. A relief valve became stuck and failed to close, leading

to a 7 percent core damage probability that ranked as the fourth most

serious US accident then on record. (A nearly identical problem would occur

two years later, resulting in a 50 percent core meltdown at Pennsylvanias

Tree Mile Island reactor.) It was a good thing for the people of oledo that

the new reactor was running at only 9 percent power and producing less


3/22

NUCLEAR ROULETTE14 8

heat and pressure when the accident occurred, but they would not have been

comforted by the scene inside the reactor complex, were the control room

operators were thrown into a state of panic as they scrambled frantically for

20 minutes in a chaotic attempt to regain control of the runaway reactor.A Beyond Nuclear report reconstructed the scene inside Davis-Besse

that day:

Over 300 bells and flashing lights were simultaneously signal-

ing alarm as a water column displaced the steam bubble shock

absorber and filled the pressurizer on the very top of the reactor,

risking any sudden jolt fracturing safety-significant pipes. . . .

[]he Number 2 Steam Generator risked boiling dry, whichcould cause dangerous overheating and even a loss-of-coolant-

accident in the hellishly hot reactor core. Operators grasped at

straws, rashly deciding to chuck emergency manual procedures

that only seemed to be making matters worse. Luckily for the

unsuspecting cities just to the east and west, an operator spotted

a gauge reading that resolved the perplexing puzzle, and correc-

tive action was taken at the 26th minute of the crisis.1

Neither the NRC nor the Babcock and Wilcox Co., the reactors

designer, seemed inclined to look too deeply into the incident. It all would

have remained a closely held secret but for James Creswell, a principled

regional NRC inspector who broke ranks and took his concerns directly to

two top NRC officials. Unfortunately, Creswells warnings were not heeded

until March 22, 1979, six days before an identical series of events led to the

destruction of the reactor at Tree Mile Island.

Davis-Besses first year of operation was marked by a second seriousaccident when both emergency feedwater pumps failed, posing the risk of

damage to the reactor core. Electrical problems led to further damage on

April 19, 1980, and again on June 24, 1981. During the attempt to recover

from the latter incident, a feedwater pump refused to start due to a malad-

justed clutch and a bent speed stop pin. Adding to the difficulties, a safety

valve failed to reseat.

A Scram and a Near MeltdownTe plants next near miss occurred on June 9, 1985, following another loss

of feedwater coolant. Even though the reactor was successfully scrammed

(that is, placed in a quick emergency shutdown), the reactor came close to

initiating a core meltdown.


4/22

FIVE OF THE WORST US REAC TORS 149

Beyond Nuclear, drawing on NRC documents, offered this reconstruc-

tion of what transpired inside the plant:

Personnel had to sprint through the darkened corridors withbolt cutters, not knowing if they had the proper keys or access

cards to open locked security doors, in order to cut through

chains securing valves, so they could manually open them to

restore water flow to steam generators in order to cool the reactor

core, with each passing minute increasing the risk of a loss-of-

coolant-accident, nuclear fuel damage, and even a meltdown.2

Nuclear expert Dave Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS), estimates that this loss of cooling water put Davis-Besse within 41

minutes of having the reactor core completely uncovered. (At Tree Mile

Island, the core was never completely uncovered, yet half the fuel rods went

into a meltdown.) Te 12-minute lapse in the flow of water to the steam

generators caused enough damage to shut Davis-Besse for a year.

Tis incident was dubbed the worst accident since Tree Mile Island, and

the US House Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power followed

up with a report revealing that Davis-Besse had recorded 48 feedwater prob-lems since July 1979. Te reactor also had accidentally shut down 40 times

between 1980 and 1985 as a result of equipment failures and human error. 3

In what proved to be a misguided attempt to improve discipline at the

plant, a former nuclear navy commander was hired as plant manager from

the mid-to-late 1980s. Tis plan ran aground when the new manager subse-

quently showed up drunk during a Christmas holiday, began cursing his

employees, and started throwing punches before plant security dragged him

from the building. But that wasnt the last of Davis-Besses problems.Nature threw the next blow on June 24, 1998. A tornado with wind speeds

topping 156 miles per hour hit the plant dead center, crossing between the

containment building and cooling tower and damaging the plants electric

transmission lines. Te twister hit without warning while the reactor was

running at 99 percent power. Te operators were able to plunge the reactor

into emergency shutdown, but it was still necessary to cool the dangerously

hot core. Unfortunately, the tornado had cut access to all off-site electric

power (the blackout would last for 27 hours). When the operators tried to

start one of the plants two emergency diesel generators, it failed to start.

(It was eventually declared inoperable owing to the extreme heat inside

the building where it was housed.) Te remaining generator also failed due

to an apparent problem with the governor control. With outside power


5/22


lines down, plant operators were unable to contact state or local authorities,

and the emergency systemdesigned to sound an alarm to warn Ottawa

County residents of a potential meltdown, explosion, or fire at the plant

was useless. Without power for cooling, temperatures in the spent fuel poolsbegan to rise. Fortunately power was restored and operators regained control

of the reactor before there was any release of radiation.

But the plants most notorious brush with disaster still lay ahead.

Ohios Hole-in-the-Head ReactorIn 2002, Davis-Besse became the subject of media ridicule for its hole-in-

the-head reactor. Over the years, corrosive acids had been allowed to spill

over the lid of the reactors pressure vessel, causing cracking in the mecha-nisms used to drive the control rods that manage temperatures in the core.

Te massive metal cap had become so degraded that it was close to bursting.

Te only thing preventing a massive radioactive steam explosion was a slim

layer of stainless steel, which itself was beginning to crack and swell.

Repairs undertaken to fix the hole in the head forced the reactor to

be closed for two years. wo plant engineers were convicted of covering

up the situation, which the Government Accountability Office called the

most serious safety issue . . . since Tree Mile Island,4

and the DOE finedFirstEnergy (the plants new owner) a record $33.5 million.

Ten it was the NRCs turn to take some heat: Te NRCs own inspector

general accused the commissioners of promoting corporate profit over public

safety. Ohio congressman Dennis J. Kucinich declared that the NRCs response

to David-Besse was inadequate, irresponsible, and left the public at grave risk.5

FirstEnergy replaced the hold-in-the-head lid with a 25-year-old lid.

Te reactor was put back online in 2004 but shut down again on March 12,

2010, after the metal nozzles atop the new reactor lid also showed signsof cracking. An inspection found that 24 of the 69 nozzles were damaged,

and two had through-wall cracks that were leaking water onto the reactor

vessel s carbon-steel lid. Te replacement reactor head, which was supposed

to be good for 15 years, somehow failed after only six years.

An investigation showed that the FirstEnergy had purchased the lid from

the owners of an uncompleted Michigan plant. It turned out the mothballed

lid was made from a substandard alloy that had been banned for use years

earlier. Although the use of a critical substandard part marked a serious

violation of the NRCs quality assurance criteria, the NRC permitted Davis-

Besse to resume operations.

In July 2006, FirstEnergy (a.k.a. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating

Company or FENOC) confessed to four inadvertent releases of radioactive


6/22


liquids that had the potential to reach groundwater, including a spill of

tritium that was double the EPAs permissible level.6

In June 2009, an explosion rocked the plants electrical switchyard. A

year later, the NRC was still uncertain of the cause and FENOC was unableto explain how it would prevent a future explosion.

By 2010, Davis-Besse had excreted nearly 557 tons of hot and toxic fuel-

rod wastes. If the plant is allowed to operate for the full term of a 20-year

operating-life extension, that amount would more than double. And ever

since the plants indoor storage pool filled up in the 1990s, the reactors used

fuel rods have been parked aboveground in unfortified concrete-and-steel

bunkers. In 1994, the oledo Coalition for Safe Energy warned the NRC

that the bunkers failed to meet technical specifications for safety, but theNRC dismissed their findings. If a power outage, earthquake, extreme

weather event, or terrorist attack were to uncover the stored fuel, a resulting

explosion and fire could send deadly fallout 500 miles downwind. According

to the NRCs own estimates from 1982 (and the population around the plant

has expanded significantly over the past 30 years), a radioactive accident at

Davis-Besse could cause 1,400 immediate fatalities, 25,000 cancer deaths,

and $185 billion (in 2010 dollars) in damages.7

A Cracked Containment BuildingTe latest development in the ongoing Davis-Besse saga erupted on Febru-

ary 8, 2012, when Congressman Kucinich produced documents showing

that the upper 20 feet of the reactors steel rebar reinforcement had been

rendered functionally ineffective by advanced and extensive cracking. An

NRC inspectors report revealed that FENOC had used brittle, corroded

rebar to patch a hole in the containment building. If the NRC inspectors had

not been alert, the faulty repair would have been cemented into the contain-ment wall and no one would have been the wiser. FENOC actively resisted

the inspection, but the NRC insisted on taking a closer lookperhaps

recalling that FENOC was suspected of using defective parts to repair its

Beaver Valley reactor in Pennsylvania. (Te Beaver Valley plant also suffers

from containment corrosion, a potentially defective replacement vessel head,

and a reactor pressure vessel that has become so embrittled by radiation

bombardment that it could shatter like a hot glass under cold water in the

event of an emergency core cooling.)

Kucinichs broadside came at a bad time for FENOC, which (despite

having one of the worst safety and performance records of any US nuclear

utility) was expecting NRC approval to extend its operating license for the

Davis-Besse plant. Faced with evidence of extensive cracking of the concrete


7/22


containment building, FENOC argued that the problem was the result not

of long-term exposure to moisture (as the NRC alleged) but of a particu-

larly powerful blizzard back in 1978.

If the Blizzard of 1978 is responsible, Kucinich shot back, the NRCshould shut down all reactors in the Midwest and demand inspections.

Kucinich also drew attention to FENOCs initial claim that cracking

occurred only in the buildings decorative and architectural elements.

Kucinich observed that FENOC made those statements even though they

knew the cracking was located at the main outer reinforcing steel in the wall,

which is clearly structural.8

FENOC also argued that the moisture seepage occurred only because its

employees had neglected to treat the walls with sealantfor 42 years. Kucinichwas incredulous. How can we expect FirstEnergy to operate a nuclear reac-

tor without dangerous consequences when they cant even think far enough

ahead to paint the wall of their containment structure? he declared.

While FENOC was awaiting the NRCs decision on Davis-Besses

future, it announced plans to disassemble the plants containment structure

to replace the facilitys aging steam generators. (Tis would mark the fourth

time the plants containment has been breached, a record for any US reactor.)

Tis radical repair is expected to further exacerbate the existing degradationof the containment building.

Meanwhile, millions of Great Lakes residents were quietly hoping the

NRC would listen to the pleas of oledo resident and legal counsel erry

Lodge, who had this message for the commissioners: We contend that

FENOCs current lack of quality assurance and control, its historic and

notorious lack of safety culture, as well as its severely degraded containment

structure, call into question Davis-Besses operational safety during the

proposed 20-year license extension.9

Diablo Canyon: Balanced on a Fault LineDiablo Canyons 27-year-old twin reactors overlook the Pacific Ocean from

Point Buchon, a coastal bluff 12 miles southwest of San Luis Obispo. Tis

is the plant that state senator Sam Blakeslee (whose district includes the

reactor station) grimly predicts could become our Fukushima. Te plants

demise probably would not come from a tsunami (the plant is perched atop

an 85-foot-tall cliff ). A catastrophic earthquake is the greater threat.

In the event of a loss of outside electric power (as happened at Fukushima),

Diablo Canyons emergency generators are supposed to kick in within 10

seconds, and (assuming the 50,000-gallon underground fuel tanks survived

the quake) there would be enough diesel fuel on hand to cool the two reactor


8/22

FIVE OF THE WORST US REAC TORS 15 3

cores for seven days. However, if the emergency generators fail to start (or if the

emergency persists for more than a week), the only remaining backup is a set of

125-volt batteries. According to a San Luis Obispo Country press release, the

batteries would provide enough power to shut the reactors and provide emer-gency core cooling and other necessary safety measures for two hours. Plant

engineer Rudy Ortega explained what that would mean in practical terms:

We would have two hours to get one of the six diesel generators started.10

In 2011, the Union of Concerned Scientists bestowed a Near-Miss

award on Diablo Canyon after NRC inspectors reported that plant engineers

had unwittingly disabled critical valves controlling the emergency cooling

system. Te problem, which could have lead to a partial meltdown, had gone

undiscovered for 18 months.11Following the Fukushima disaster, an NRC inspection at Diablo Canyon

revealed some stunning safety lapses. Doors designed to self-latch in the

event of flooding proved unworkable. Four of the 30-foot cables used to

power fans needed to cool the plants six 18-cylinder diesel generators were

not installed and could not be found. All six emergency generators shared

the same central location, leaving them open to a shared, common mode

failure. And, worst of all, the NRC appeared surprised by the discovery

that the two reactors had only one emergency cooling pump betweenthem.12 (Design flaws are not new to Diablo Canyon. In 1981, in one of

the industrys most embarrassing engineering flubs, plant operator Pacific

Gas & Electric spent four years constructing a reactor dome before a young

engineer double-checked the blueprints and pointed out that critical parts

had been installed upside down.)

Calls to Close Diablo Canyon

Following the Fukushima meltdowns, both of Californias Democratic sena-tors, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, contacted the NRC to express

their concern for public safety, given that roughly 424,000 live within 50

miles of the Diablo Canyon and 7.4 million live within 50 miles of the San

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.13Te group San Luis Obispo Mothers

for Peace joined 25 national anti-nuclear organizations to petition the NRC

to suspend all relicensing of reactors until there had been a thorough inves-

tigation of all safety issues raised by Japans misfortune. Te NRC rejected

the petition in September 2011.

Te NRC continues to insist the plant is earthquake-safe. Te seismology

around Diablo Canyon has been thoroughly studied, NRC administrator

Elmo Collins assured the people of San Luis Obispo. But Jeanne Hard-

ebeck, a US Geological Survery (USGS) seismologist, wasnt so certain.14


9/22


In 2008, Hardebeck discovered a previously unknown earthquake fault,

the Shoreline Fault, located offshore less than 2,000 feet from the plant.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) dismissed the new evidence as flawed

and said it would be perfectly safe to continue operating the reactors. In a500-page report, PG&E informed the NRC that it viewed the new fault as

inconsequential. Since it was only 15 miles long, PG&E reasoned, the Shore-

line Fault could produce nothing stronger than a 6.5-magnitude quake.15

However, if the Shoreline were to connect with the longer, nearby Hosgri

Fault, it would more than double the assumed length of the Hosgri, extend-

ing the zone of its potential impact over 250 miles from Point Conception

(about 120 miles northwest of Los Angeles) to the coastal town of Bolinas,

north of San Francisco.Hardebeck questioned PG&Es conclusions: An interpretation that says

the two faults dont connect doesnt seem to fit with the observations that we

have. More often than not, Hardebeck explained, earthquakes that began

on one fault have actually jumped to another fault, over distances of up to

three miles. If the two faults were to move as one, Hardebeck reasoned, an

offshore slippage could produce the equivalent of a 7.7-magnitude earth-

quake striking directly below the Diablo Canyon site. While reluctant to

predict the faults might be connected, USGS scientist Sam Johnson didconfide to colleagues at a Spring 2011 USGS meeting in Menlo Park,

California, that, having looked at the evidence, it was fair to conclude that

the potential force of this compound fault would be close to an 8.0. Tat

would be a big concern.16

New Fault Raises Megaquake ConcernsTere is a lot of talk at the NRC about responding to the lessons of

Fukushima, but so far the NRC continues to ignore the fact that the unex-pectedly violent quake that triggered the Japanese tsunami occurred when

several faults assumed to be unconnected suddenly surged at the same

time. When the Fukushima quake hit, Hardebeck emphasized, it ruptured

through all of those fault segments.17

State senator Sam Blakeslee has a PhD in earthquake studies, so his words

carry extra weight when he faults the NRC for not taking the risk seriously

enough. Blakeslee was astonished that PG&E sped up its bid to win its

relicensing approval before the new Shoreline fault earthquake data could

be properly assessed. I could not understand the utility racing to relicense

before the seismic information came forward, Blakeslee told the Center for

Investigative Reporting (CIR). It was almost as if they were afraid of what

they would find.18


10/22


With Fukushima in the rearview mirror, Blakeslee called a hearing

and grilled NRC officials. Tere is a new fault, in my district, next to my

constituents, and youre telling me youre just going to continue business as

usual and not delay to get the information before you do your safety review?Blakeslee fumed. Tats unacceptable!

Asked to justify its decision to relicense, an NRC official told Blakeslee

that the commission had relied on safety evaluations submitted by PG&E.

We expect licensees to do those studies, the NRC official testified.

Documents obtained by the CIR revealed that PG&Es scientists had, in

fact, looked into the probability of a 7.2 quake occurring along the combined

faults and even produced a graph showing that the potential shaking could

exceed the stresses the plant was built to withstand. But in its public presen-tations, PG&E provided Blakeslee and the NRC with a different graph,

one showing that a serious quake along the Shoreline Fault was impossible.

Hardebeck was not convinced. She insisted her geological mapping evidence

showed earthquakes along the Shoreline Fault very clearly go all the way to

the Hosgri Fault.

Activist and author Norman Solomon (co-author with Harvey Wasser-

man of the 1982 anti-nuclear classic, Killing Our Own: Te Disaster of Americas

Experience with Radiation) was so concerned about the danger of Californiastwo coast-sited nukes that he decided to run for a US congressional seat on

an anti-nuclear platform. Although he served as an Obama delegate to

the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Solomon now calls Obamas

nuclear policy fundamentally mistaken. Solomon was particularly critical

of the plan to triple US loan guarantee handouts for nuclear plant operators

from $18 billion to $54 billion. Te NRC is a nuclear-friendly fox guarding

the radioactive chicken house, Solomon declared on the campaign trail.

Te federal government has no business promoting this dangerous industrywhile safe and sustainable energy resources are readily available.19

Solomon has called for an immediate shutdown of both Diablo Canyon

and San Onofre. As to the NRCs call for more studies, Solomon responded,

I reject the notion that we should wait for such nuclear-enthralled agencies to

tell us whether nuclear power is an acceptable risk for Californians. Solomon

praised Germanys bold decision to abandon nuclear powerwhich means

replacing 23 percent of the countrys power needs with new renewable energy.

California, by comparison, produces only 15 percent of its electricity by frying

atoms. Effective conservation options are readily available, and widespread

use of renewables like solar is in reach, Soloman wisely concluded.

Te Sunshine State has the right political climate to go nuclear-free. In

1976, a citizens group succeeded in placing an initiative on the June ballot.


11/22


Proposition 15 called for a ban on new reactors in the state. After the nuclear

industry spent millions of dollars to defeat the proposal, the state legislature

took a stand against a nuclear renaissance by passing a law banning further

construction of nuclear power plants until the NRC could provide a provenmeans of safely disposing of nuclear waste. (As of December 2010, 13 states

had either banned or placed restrictions on the construction of new reac-

tors.)20More recently, anti-nuclear campaigners circulating a petition for a

statewide initiative calling for the closure of Californias existing plants got an

unexpected boost from Mother Nature. On April 26, 2012, Diablo Canyon

was forced to shut its Unit 2 reactor when seawater intake pipes became

clogged by a swarm of salpsjellyfish-like sea creatures. With Diablos

other reactor down for maintenance and San Onofres reactors ordered shutfor safety reasons, California had become a de facto nuclear-free zone.

Indian Point: The Countrys Most Dangerous Nuclear PlantTe 2,062 MW Indian Point twin-reactor complex on the Hudson River

in New York has a long history of operational problems. Since 2007, Indian

Point has experienced nine unplanned shutdowns due to a wide range of

problems, including a steam boiler rupture, a transformer explosion, a loss

of generator power, a failed generator relay, the failure of a main feedwaterpump, and blocked cooling-system intake valves. (Te rupture of a steam

generator tube in 2000 was ranked, at the time, as the worst such accident

in reactor history.)

Indian Point sits 24 miles from Manhattan, athwart two intersecting

earthquake faults capable of producing a 7.0-magnitude jolt10 times

stronger than what the plant was built to handle. Te NRC rates Indian

Point as the US reactor most likely to melt down in the aftermath of a quake.

And because it contains the radioactive equivalent of 1,000 Hiroshimabombs, the US Geological Survey ranks Indian Point as the most dangerous

power plant in the country.

Before the reactors began operating on September 16, 1962, local cancer

rates were 11 percent below the national average. By 1997, cancer rates in the

four counties adjacent to the plant were 1.1 percent above the national aver-

age. Using New York State Cancer Registry data, the Radiation and Public

Health Project (RPHP) has revealed that cancer rates in the Indian Point

region have continued to climb with each passing year. By 2007, the cancer

rate was nearly 7 percent above the national average. RPHP also reported

unexpected rises in incidences of 19 of 20 major cancers. Te greatest

increase was found in the local rate of thyroid cancer, which jumped from

13 percent below the national average to 51 percent above. Tere are no


12/22


known causes of thyroid cancer other than exposure to radioactive iodine,

RPHP director Joseph Mangano noted. Mangano added that rising cancer

rates in areas near Indian Point, whose reactors are aging and corroding over

time, raises concerns.21Indian Point is operated by Entergy, a premier provider of nuclear life-

cycle services,22whose laissez-faire attitude toward safety issues was on full

display in January 2012, when the aging reactor was shut down after a pipe

that circulates 90,000 gallons per minute of 540F (282C) radioactive water

sprang a leak. When a local V reporter asked about the leak, Entergy

spokesperson Jerry Napp corrected him. Te seal did have an increased

flow-rate of water, Napp explained. Some might refer to it as a leak but

it is really just a water-flow through the seal. . . . As designed, actually. 23Despite the plants history as the most dangerously operated plant in the

United States and the fact that New York State Attorney General Eric .

Schneiderman targeted Entergy in 2011 for its continued failure to comply

with federal fire safety regulations,24Entergy has asked the NRC to extend

the licenses of the plants Units 2 and 3 for another 20 years (Unit 1 was

shut down in 1974; the licenses for Unit 2 and Unit 3 expire in 2013 and

2015, respectively). Schneiderman scored a major victory on February 1,

2012, when the NRC sided with New York State and rejected Entergysrequest that Indian Point be granted exemptions from more than 100

critical fire safety requirements.25Te NRC promised to fast-track new

post-Fukushima retrofits to safeguard Indian Point. Tese will start soon,

NRC spokesperson Neil Sheehan stated, like what we did with security

after 9/11.26 Te NRC commission itself lacked Sheehans optimism. In

an internal comment issued in 2011, NRC chair Jaczko promised only that

NRC staff should strive to complete and implement the lessons learned

from the Fukushima accident by 2016.27

No Widespread Health EffectsMarvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, assures

Indian Points critics that there is no cause for alarm. In a February 17, 2012

op-ed in theNew York Post, Fertel wrote, Our facilities are tightly regulated

by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has at least two

on-site inspectors at every US nuclear-energy facility every day. Fertel went on

to cite the NRCs multiyear, multimillion-dollar study modeling the effects of

potential accidents at US nuclear facilities. Te results, Fertel wrote, affirm

that any such event would unfold slowly and cause no widespread health effects;

current emergency plans would protect the public.28Tose plans include a

promise to evacuate 20 million people in the event of a nuclear emergencyan


13/22


expectation the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has determined

to be totally unrealistic. As one jaded New Yorker observed, People cant

get over the bridgeon a rainy day, let alone if there was a nuclear event.29

Meanwhile, neither Fertel, the NRC, nor the DHS seems overlyconcerned by the 9/11 Commissions discovery that Mohamed Atta, the

alleged leader of the attacks on the World rade Center and the Pentagon,

also contemplated flying a hijacked airliner into a nuclear reactor near New

York City. Attas obvious target? Indian Point.

Concerned that each of Indian Points reactors takes in about 1.2

billion gallons of river water a day, Riverkeeper lawyer Phillip Musegass

attempted to gauge the plants riverine impacts. However, as he complained

to reporters from the Center for Investigative Reporting, under the NRCsbizarre relicensing process he discovered that we are not allowed to raise

concerns about the spent fuel pool, we arent allowed to raise concerns about

the emergency evacuation plan, were not allowed to raise questions about

terrorism or security.30

When the NRC issued a draft supplemental environmental statement

declaring that Indian Point poses no significant public health threat, Indian

Points neighbors, environmental groups (including the Natural Resources

Defense Council and Riverkeeper), and New York governor Andrew Cuomojoined forces to challenge this conclusion. Cuomo took the battle to the next

stage, suing the NRC for failing to enforce its own safety regulations. Ive

had concern about Indian Point for a long time, Governor Cuomo insisted,

As attorney general, I did a lot of work on Indian Point. My position was

that it shouldnt be relicensed. My position was that it should be closed.

Cuomos concerns were further raised by the NRCs new seismic studies.

Te Indian Point power plant is the most susceptible to earthquake because

reactor number three is on a fault, Cuomo noted, adding this plantinthis proximity to New York Citywas never a good risk.31

Local residents presented the NRC with New York State Health Depart-

ment data showing that rates of thyroid cancer in the four counties nearest

the reactor site were nearly twice the US average. Over the previous four

years, 992 residents had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Childhood

cancer rates were also above average. Samples of milk from breastfeeding

mothers living within 50 miles of the reactor showed significant levels of

strontium-90, with levels climbing the closer a resident was to the Indian

Point plant. Strontium-90 also had been detected in local fish and crabs.

In the March 28, 2011 edition of Newsweek, Helen Caldicott, cofounder

of Physicians for Social Responsibility, calculated the consequences of

a Fukushima-style incident at Indian Point. At the sound of an on-site


14/22


alarm, she explained, residents would have about 78 minutes to evacuate the

10-mile zone around the reactor. Caldicott estimated early fatalities from

acute radiation sickness for those within the 10-mile evacuation zone would

range from 2,440 to 11,500. Late cancer deaths, which would occur twoto 60 years later, could range from 28,100 to a staggering 518,000 people

in the 50-mile zone. Meanwhile, New York would be rendered virtually

uninhabitable, with $1 trillion or more in costs from attempts at decon-

tamination, the condemnation of radioactive property, and compensatory

payments to people forced to relocate.

More than Adequate Power without Indian Point

In January 2012, a week before two major public hearings into the plantsfuture, one of Indian Points reactors was shut down by a leak. On Janu-

ary 31, 2012, the New York State Assemblys Committee on Energy and

Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions concluded,

Indian Point can be shut down without unduly burdening New Yorks rate-

payers or the electric system. Te New York Independent System Operator

(the nonprofit organization that oversees New York Citys energy needs)

confirmed that the state had more than adequate generation capacity due

to expected upgrades and the completion of a 250 MW offshore wind powerproject, which would give southeast New York 2,000 MW of new renewable

power by 2015 and 3,000 MW due to transmission improvements by 2016.

Earlier studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council and River-

keeper had concluded that renewable power from new wind and solar

projects, combined with improved transmission, could replace Indian Points

2,000 MW in 10 years or less while adding only $3 to $5 to the average

customers monthly utility bill.32

Te state assembly invited Entergy to present records documenting theprice and quantity of power produced by its reactors, but the company was

a no-show at the hearing. Entergy failed to provide even the most basic

information associated with the plants operation, assembly member Kevin

Cahill fumed. Entergys lack of cooperation will require us to revisit the

issue in the very near future.33Local patience with Entergy and the NRC

is wearing thin. In March 2011, Cuomo asked the NRC to close Indian

Point because of structural flaws. When his request was rebuffed, Cuomo

responded by signing the Power New York Act, which would replace Indian

Point with a bevy of renewable power projects.

Te NRC has deemed most of the concerns raised by local residents to

be out of the scope of the relicensing proceedings. For their part, officials

in Westchester County, where Indian Point is located, have announced an


15/22


ambitious plan to reduce the countys carbon footprint by 20 percent over the

next seven years and by 80 percent by midcenturyturning away from the

false solution of nuclear power.

San Onofre: Mysterious Leaks Prompt Shutdown by NRCIn 2009, San Onofres Units 2 and 3 were shut down so that plant operators

could replace four steam generators that had been in operation since the

early 1980s. (San Onofres Unit 1 had been shut down in 1992. Te 600-ton

reactor was to be shipped 15,000 miles around the tip of South America for

disposal in South Carolina. When those plans were scuttled, the reactor was

entombed on-site, in a massive casket of cement and steel.) After more than

three decades, plant officials were concerned that critical tubing in the aginggenerators might be subject to leaks or clogginga significant worry given

that each generator contained 9,700 tubes. Plant officials promised to replace

the old generators with the safest, most efficient 21st century machinery.34

After an investment of $670 million, the two new, improved reactors began

service in 2011, but on January 31, 2012, plant workers were forced to shut the

Unit 3 reactor following a radiation leak into the atmosphere. San Onofres

owner, Southern California Edison (SCE), initially told the public, Tere

has been no release to the atmosphere. Tis was followed a day later by theadmission that some radioactive tritium could have leaked from the damaged

plant. An SCE official subsequently conceded, Tere might have been an

insignificant or extremely small release, but he hastened to add the industrys

inevitable assurance that the radiation would not pose a danger to anyone.35

Te truth is, no one knows the nature or amount of radiation that was

released that day since the plant operators are not equipped to properly

monitor off-site emissions. What is known, however, is that radioactive

poisons vented into the sky can be carried as far as 15 miles by the winds. Soanyone out on a bike ride in the area that day could have unwittingly inhaled

a dose of San Onofres fallout.

Te cause of the unexpected leak sent plant operators into a new round of

damage control. An investigation traced the leak to one of the nearly 10,000

metal tubes in one of Unit 3s two generators. Te 0.75-inch-thick tube was

losing around 3.5 gallons of water an hour. Tese small tubes draw heat away

from the zirconium-clad fuel rods in the heart of the nuclear reactor, carry-

ing the superheated, high-pressure, radioactive water from steam generators

located inside the reactors containment dome to a separate building, where

the steam spins turbines to produce electricity. By design, San Onofres

adjacent turbine buildings are not sealed, which allowed radiation from the

leaked hot water to escape into the atmosphere.


16/22


17/22


Floridas St. Lucie nuclear power plant, and the only operating reactor at

Tree Mile Island in Pennsylvania.38(It is both surprising and disturbing that

these defects cannot be traced to a single manufacturer. Japans Mitsubishi

Heavy Industries built San Onofres generators; General Electric providedthe generators for the Arkansas plant; the French firm AREVA manufac-

tured the generators used at St. Lucies and Tree Mile Island.)

On March 14, three more tubes failed during a pressure test at San

Onofres Unit 3, prompting the NRC to fly a team of inspectors out to the

ailing plant. On March 27, the NRC announced that neither reactor would

be allowed to restart until they could be proven safe to operate.

Faulty Tubes, Faulty ProceduresIn early April, NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko flew in to inspect the plant.

By now it had been determined that the tubes had sustained damage from

friction caused by excessive vibrations. Te cause of the vibrations remained a

mystery. Would the NRC finally hold the industry accountable, or would it,

once again, opt for accommodation? An April 5 Associated Press report did

not raise hopes. It explained the SCEs proposed solution: 321 tubes with

excessive wear will be plugged and taken out of service at the two reactors,

well within the margin to allow them to keep operating (emphasis added).39

A report from Friends of the Earth (FOE) released on May 15, 2012,

traced the failure of more than 1,300 tubes in the two generators to another

failure: SCE had falsely informed the NRC that its new steam generators

were a like-for-like replacement. Installing identical equipment can save

time and money since it does not require a rigorous licensing review. SCE

failed to inform the NRC that the new generators contained seven significant

design changes that should have required public hearings before approval.

According to the FOE investigation, SCE failed to inform the NRC thatthe new generators (1) changed a preexisting design specifically intended to

reduce vibration; (2) removed the generators main structural stay cylinder;

and (3) crammed an additional 400 tubes into an already packaged design.

Edison proposed that it be allowed to restart the reactor after plugging

the damaged tubes and promised to operate the reactor only between 50

and 80 percent power. But the FOE report noted that reducing power does

not provide a remedy for underlying structural problems causing the tube-

damaging vibrations. FOE noted that power reductions had failed to solve

similar problems at other reactors and, worse, could actually exacerbate the

vibration problems. If the reactor were allowed to restart and a steam-line

accident were to occur, the resulting damage could cause an inordinate

amount of radioactivity to be released outside of the containment system,


18/22


compromising public health and safety in one of the most heavily populated

areas in the United States.40

What are SCEs options? An attempt to repair the damaged generators

could take 18 months and cost $400 million, so the most straightforward solu-tion would be to replace the existing generatorsonly this time, SCE should

be required to proceed through the full NRC license amendment process.

An Unplanned Swim in the Reactor PoolAnother troubling incident had preceded the headline-grabbing news of a

radioactive leak. A private contractor had been entrusted with replacing the

lid of the reactor vessel. On January 27, an outside worker hired by that

contractor dropped a flashlight. When the worker leaned over a railing toretrieve his equipment, he plunged headlong into the 20-foot-deep reactor

pool, still aglow with the blue brilliance of the Cerenkov radiation being

thrown off by the submerged reactor core.

SCE did not file an NRC report on the incident, claiming that the

worker received only 5 rem of radioactive exposure. SCE spokesperson

Gil Alexander reassured the public that the unnamed employee was able

to return to work the same day.41Te CBS radio affiliate in Los Angeles

offered a slightly different spin on the story. According to KNX 1070, anNRC official reported the worker actually swallowed a little bit of water

that had some residual contamination in it. Once the worker was examined

and declared unharmed by the 5 rem exposure, KNX reported, he was

orderedback to work the same day.42(Emphasis added.)

A nuclear expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) subse-

quently discovered that statistics published on the NRCs own website

showed that radiation levels in Unit 2s cooling system had doubled from

January to February 2011 and continued to rise through the end of the year.Tis suggested to UCS that the reactor had operated for several months

with damaged fuel rods that allowed radioactivity to escape into the water

at ever-increasing rates. Such a breach would have allowed radioactive

particles to migrate into the water in the pool the San Onofre worker fell

into. Additional fuel fleas or hot particles could have been released into

the water during removal and replacement of the reactor core.

Te NRC seemed to be content with SCEs assurances that the worker

was in perfect health. When Rochelle Becker, executive director of the Alli-

ance for Nuclear Responsibility, contacted the NRC to obtain information

about the workers radiation dose, the NRC simply told her to go ask SCE.

When youre telling the public to go back to the utility, Becker observed,

I think thats an indication that there is too much trust.43


19/22


Residents to NRC: Shut Down San OnofreWith San Onofre shut down, local governments in San Clemente and Laguna

Beach have appealed to the NRC to prevent the plant from restarting until

the residents are convinced it would be safe to do so. Local opponents pointto a November 2008 California Energy Commission report44that warned

San Onofre was likely to experience larger and more frequent earthquakes

than it was designed to handle, which has further fueled concerns among

local residents and both of Californias US Senators.45

Since SCE does not share its radiation data with the public, the San

Clemente city council voted to install its own radiation monitoring system.

With residents demanding epidemiological studies to assess the health of

people living near the reactors, an SCE spokesman announced on February10, 2012, that the company had not made a decision on whether well apply

for renewal to restart the plant. If SCE does decide to close the plant, it will

then have to deal with decommissioning and the safe disposal of 4,000 tons

of high-level radioactive waste stored at the site.46

California is one of 13 states that have either banned or restricted

the construction of any nuclear reactors within their borders. In 2012,

Californians began circulating petitions for a ballot initiative that would, if

supported by voters, close San Onofre and Diablo Canyon forever. Californiahas now joined a rising tide of grassroots campaigns calling for the immedi-

ate shutdown of reactors in Florida, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, exas, and

Vermont. California senator Barbara Boxer used this news to deliver a stern

message to NRC officials during a hearing before the US Senate Committee

on Environment and Public Works, convened on December 15, 2011:

Let me tell you what happens when people lose confidence in

the NRC and the nuclear industry. Right now, there is a peti-tion being circulated for a ballot initiative that would effectively

shut down the two nuclear power plants in California. I believe

we will see more of that across the country if America doesnt

have confidence in the NRC. If the NRC does not do its job,

the American people will demand the ultimate protectionthe

shutdown of old nuclear power plants that have similar charac-

teristics as the Fukushima plant.47

Vermont Yankee: The Green Mountain State vs. the NRCOn March 10, 2011, the NRC unanimously approved a 20-year license

extension for the troubled Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Within


20/22


hours of the decision, three similar General Electric Mark 1 reactors were

knocked off-line by an earthquake in Japanand all three overheated and

exploded. Despite the devastation in Fukushima Prefecture, the NRC stood

by its decision to allow the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee plant to continueoperating through 2031. Given Vermont Yankees history of breakdowns

and cover-upsand the fact that a reactor accident here could put more than

a million Americans at riskthe watchdog group Beyond Nuclear excori-

ated the NRCs decision as both audacious and reckless.48

Vermonters received another jolt when it was revealed that the NRC had

voted to extend Vermont Yankees license even though its inspectors had

discovered that critical electric cables powering the plants safety systems

had been submerged under water for extended periods of time.49It was not the only maintenance failure of Entergy Corp., which had

acquired the plant in 2002. Te company has a reputation for buying reac-

tors cheap and running them into the ground. In 2004, a poorly maintained

electrical system set off a large fire in the plants turbine building that forced

an emergency shutdown. In 2007, Vermont Yankee experienced a series

of maintenance problems that included the dramatic collapse of a cooling

tower. A waterfall of high-pressure water burst from a ruptured cooling

pipe and tore a gaping hole in the plants wall. Entergy was able to hide thedamagebut only until a concerned employee leaked a photo of the wreck-

age to the press. Te huge gap in the side of the building was reminiscent of

the hole in the side of the Pentagon following the 9/11 attacks.

Tritium + Entergy = PerjuryDuring state hearings in 2009, Entergy executives were asked if radioactive

tritium detected in the soil and groundwater near the reactor could have leaked

from the plant. Company officials repeatedly swore under oath that this wasimpossible since there were no underground pipes at the plant. It was not

until January 2010, after a leak of radioactive tritium was traced to a series of

subsurface pipes, that Entergy changed its story. While the plant didnt have

underground pipes, Entergy now explained, it did have buried pipes.50

Attorney general William Sorrell began a 17-month investigation during

which Entergys former executive vice president Curtis Hebert admitted that

the companys statements about the pipes could have been more accurate.

Te state ordered Entergy to remove more than 300,000 gallons of radioac-

tive water fron the soil and ground water at the reactor site, and Vermont

governor Peter Shumlin demanded the plants closure.

Teres another waste problem at the plant: a large and potentially lethal

stockpile of used fuel rods. While Fukushimas six reactors had between


21/22


360 and 500 tons of slowly dying fuel rods on-site, the nuclear graveyard

at Vermont Yankee is filled with 690 tons of dangerously radioactive waste.

And the storage pools for this spent fuel lack both backup cooling systems

and backup generators.Beyond Nuclears Freeze Our Fukushimas campaign, which aims to

close all 23 Mark 1 reactors in the United States, hoped to score its first

victory when Vermont Yankees 40-year operating license expired on March

21, 2012. Te odds were improved by the fact that Vermont is the only state

that gives lawmakers the authority to veto a nuclear power plant. In Febru-

ary 2010, a month after Entergys tritium scandal was exposed, the Vermont

Senate voted 264 against issuing a new certificate of public good that

would allow Vermont Yankee to continue operating.51

Entergy Sues VermontIn April 2011, Entergys lawyers responded by suing the governor and the

state, claiming, We have a right to continue operation.52On January 19,

2012, federal judge Garvan Murtha ruled that only the NRC could close a

nuclear plant, and therefore Entergy was entitled to its new 20-year oper-

ating license. Murtha also made it clear that the Green Mountain State

was not entitled to raise any questions regarding plant safety or the pricescharged for nuclear powerunder federal law, only the NRC could raise

such matters.

Te decision alarmed Beyond Nuclear and other critics who feared the

nuclear industry and the federal government were working in concert to

pre-empt a states right to self determination for an energy future in the

public good. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) quickly weighed in. If Vermont

wants to move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, Sanders told the

Burlington Free Press, no corporation should have the right to force our stateto stay tethered to an aging, problem-ridden nuclear plant.53

Eight days after the judges decision, Entergy refused the states second

request to investigate the source of a tritium leak that had poisoned a

drinking well on the plants property.54On July 25, 2011, Entergy further

demonstrated its disregard for due process by announcing a $60 million

refueling projectan investment that would pay off only if the power plant

won its extension.

Entergys lawyers publicly confirmed their understanding that the

company still needs the permission of Vermonts Public Service Board (a

quasi-official board that oversees Vermonts utilities) if it is to continue

operating its reactors. In a responding press release, however, the states

Department of Public Service (which represents the interests of utility


22/22


customers in cases brought before the Public Service Board) cautioned, Past

experience shows Entergy cannot be taken at its word.55

In a daunting struggle that pits 600,000 Vermonters against the US

government, the nuclear industry, and the NRC, the state attorney generalvowed to appeal Judge Murthas decisionall the way to the US Supreme

Court, if necessary.

People dont trust the NRC, Bob Audette, a reporter for the Brattleboro

Reformer, told a film crew from the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR).

Tey think its the lapdog of the industry. Tey think its there basically to

affirm everything the industry does. Its too cozy with the industry.

In another interview with the CIR, Anthony Roisman, a legal consultant

for New York and Vermont, expressed his concerns with the NRC: Tisregulatory agency does not regulate effectively. And until it does, there is

no way that the public can have any confidence that plants, whether they

are licensed or re-licensed, wont have some catastrophic event. No one

will benefit from a post-catastrophic-event hand-wringing that says, Oh

we should have done this and well do better next time. Te consequences

are unimaginable.56