Concerns about intake structure and emergency service water pumps at flooded Ft. Calhoun

Appearing on CNN two days ago, Fairewinds Associates nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen focused his concerns about flooding at Ft. Calhoun nuclear power plant not on the reactor containment and auxiliary buildings, but rather on the water intake structure housing the emergency service water pumps needed for vital cooling functions. He urged that, like Ft. Calhoun, the Cooper atomic reactor, an exact replica of Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4, be shut down immediately, so that its hellishly hot core can begin to cool down before flood waters rise anymore there. Arnie again raised the specter of upstream dams on the Missouri River failing, in which "all bets are off" at Ft. Calhoun.

Joe Cirincione of Ploughshares Fund calls for full disclosure from NRC on "slow motion Fukushima" at Ft. Calhoun

On the Rachel Maddow Show, Joseph Cirincione (picture at left), President of the Ploughshares Fund, called for "full disclosure" from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the "slow motion Fukushima" underway at Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant on the historically flooded Missouri River in Nebraska. He pointed out that just last year, NRC cited Ft. Calhoun for one of only two "yellow" safety violations in the entire U.S., for its woefully inadequate preparation for floods. NRC's documents reveal that Ft. Calhoun was vulnerable to a full meltdown from a flood of only 1,010 feet above sea level, just a feet above where flood waters actually now stand at the plant. Since then, despite Ft. Calhoun's initial resistance and foot dragging vis a vis NRC's enforcement orders, flood defenses are now supposedly good up to 1,014 feet, although these preparations have yet to be inspected by NRC, and are of course currently facing a real-life, ultimate test. For example, just last Sunday, when the Aqua Dam failed, Ft. Calhoun was forced onto emergency diesels, as flood waters lapped at a main transformer -- from flooding nearly 8 feet below the 1,014 foot level. Cirrincione also warned about the risk of an upstream dam, such as at Fort Peck, failing, as well as building foundations at Fort Calhoun itself being undermined. He called on Omaha, 19 miles to the south, to begin making preparations now for emergency evacuation, should the worst happen at Fort Calhoun. Regarding Ft. Calhoun's "yellow finding," Dave Lochbaum at Union of Concerned Scientists has praised NRC: "Kudos to the NRC for taking pro-active steps last year to make Fort Calhoun better protected against this year’s flood."

From Voice of America to Voice of Russia, Beyond Nuclear addresses nuclear safety risks

Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps was interviewed by both Voice of America as well as Voice of Russia yesterday. Voice of America asked about both flood risks to nuclear power plants in Nebraska, as well as fire risks at the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab in New Mexico. Voice of Russia asked about nuclear power safety risks in general, and flooding risks in Nebraska in particular. Kamps was previously interviewed by Voice of America on the first day of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe as well. He was also interviewed by Voice of America a few days into the catastrophe, about the risks of 23 operating reactors in the U.S. that share the identical design as Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4. Voice of Russia also previously interviewed Kevin, on April 11th; he and Takoma Park, Maryland Nuclear-Free Zone Committee member Bob Rinne debated a nuclear engineering professor, Igor Strakovsky, from George Washington University about the safety risks of nuclear power.

Fairewinds Associates identifies key safety risks due to flooding at Ft. Calhoun

On June 27th, Fairewinds Associates nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen stated in an email:

"It's not about the containment or the auxiliary building at Ft. Calhoun!

Everyone is looking at the wrong building ... look at the little building along the river ... it is the intake structure ... that is where the emergency service water pumps are located ... they provide the cooling water that runs through a heat exchanger that cools the nuclear core and the spent fuel pool ... how much more does the river have to rise before the emergency service water pumps flood?  At Fukushima, the intake structures were destroyed and the reactors would not have been cooled even if the diesels had worked.  This is called the "loss of the ultimate heat sink."

Also, note that some non-safety related buildings are flooding.  Water has entered the lower levels of the turbine hall and is being pumped back out.  While not safety significant, there could be an economic impact if electrical equipment in these areas gets wet.

Also, the ground under the foundations to these safety related structure are now saturated.  There are numerous underground safety related electrical wires that are required to run those emergency service water pumps along the river.  What does all that water do to settling of the buildings in the future or to the seismic analysis?

Finally, the unlikely event with the most serious consequences is the failure of an upstream dam.  Barring the failure of one of the six upsteam dams on the Missouri, it is not likely that the water level will reach the containment's design basis flood height.  Barring a failure of one out of six dams that are 50 years old and have never experienced these high flow conditions before .....".

"Nuclear power is too risky to operate in a destabilized climate"

In an online post entitled "Flooded Nebraska nuclear plant raises broader disaster fears," Steve Hargreaves at CNN Money has quoted Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps on the growing risks to nuclear power plants from severe weather events caused by the climate crisis. The story reports:

"With the vast majority of the world's climate scientists predicting more extreme weather events in the years ahead as the planet warms, activists are calling for the at-risk plants to be shut or, at the very least, strongly reinforced.

'Each one has its own pathway to disaster,' said Kevin Kamps, an activist at the watchdog group Beyond Nuclear. 'Nuclear power is too risky to operate in a destabilized climate. We think it should be phased out.'...

...The Missouri River is flooding as a result of a particularly snowy winter in Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas, as well as heavy spring rains.

Kamps brought up the possibility of any one of the half-dozen dams upstream from the plant failing, calling that event a 'nightmare' scenario that would push the water well past the 1,014-foot level the facility was built to withstand.

In that event, power to the plant from either its grid connection or back-up diesel generators could be lost, resulting in an inability to circulate water to keep either the reactor core or the spent fuel pool cool, said Kamps."

Beyond Nuclear's pamphlet, "Routine Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plants in the United States: What Are the Dangers?," contains a map showing the locations of the 104 operating atomic reactors in the U.S. Dozens of reactors are located on rivers, potentially at risk from floods. Dozens of reactors are on the sea coasts, potentially at risk from hurricanes or storm surges -- and, eventually, from rising sea levels. And dozens of inland reactors, including those on the Great Lakes (and there are an additional 20 reactors on the Canada-side of the Great Lakes), are at risk from such natural disasters as tornadoes -- potentially exposing the drinking water supply for 40 million people to catastrophic radioactive contamination. Beyond Nuclear's backbgrounder, "Climate Chaos and Nuclear Power," prepared in Feb. 2008, shows clearly that nuclear power is not safe in an ever worsening climate crisis.