Concerned citizens turn out in force at NRC public meeting about rash of serious incidents at Palisades atomic reactor

The scorched electrical panel, caused by the Sept. 25, 2011 accident of "substantial safety significance" at Palisades

Up to 200 people attended a Feb. 29, 2012 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) public meeting about a rash of serious accidents at the Palisades atomic reactor in southwest Michigan, on the Lake Michigan shoreline. Beyond Nuclear spread the word about the meeting, provided background, and attended by phone. Many concerned citizens, some brand new to the issues, moved by the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe, others veteran anti-nuclear activists who have watchdogged and actively resisted Palisades for decades, fired questions off from the microphone over the course of two hours. NRC had eaten up the first hour with a basic presentation and a long break.

Perhaps the most significant revelation provided by the NRC staff was admitting that Palisades has the single most embrittled reactor pressure vessel (RPV) in the U.S., making it vulnerable to pressurized thermal shock (PTS). Jennifer Uhle, PhD., from NRC's Office of Regulatory Research, admitted that "it's true that Palisades' vessel is the most embrittled vessel at an operating nuclear power plant" in the U.S. Uhle said that Palisades is nonetheless safe to operate till 2017, at which point it would have to prove to NRC its embrittlement is not a problem. But NRC has repeatedly weakened its embrittlement standards, to allow risky reactors like Palisades to keep running. Palisades first violated NRC embrittlement regulations in 1981, just 10 short years into operations. This latest 2017 NRC deadline seems to be the newest extension to what had previously been a 2014 deadline for Palisades' shut down due to embrittlement.

Environmental watchdogs have long been concerned PTS could fracture Palisades' RPV like a hot glass under cold water if the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) is ever turned on. Frighteningly, Palisades' ECCS did activate on Sept. 25, 2011, during an incident of "substantial significance to safety," in NRC's words. However, the High-Pressure Injection and Low-Pressure Injection did not actually inject cooling water into the RPV, due to the high pressure inside.

In June, 2011, the Associated Press published a four part series on aging atomic reactor risks in the U.S. PTS, and NRC's weakening of safety regulations to allow embrittled RPVs as at Palisades to continue operating, were at the top of AP's list. But Don't Waste Michigan had reported these concerns 18 years earlier. RPV embrittlement and PTS risks were the single biggest concern of an environmental coalition that opposed Palisades' 20 year license extension during a 2005 to 2007 battle, but NRC rubberstamped it anyway. Despite competitive claims to the contrary, Palisades very well may be the oldest operating commercial atomic reactor in the world. It received an operations license in 1967, but failed to fire up until 1971 because it was such a lemon, despite being brand new. Thus, 2012 marks Palisades' 45th year, even though it has "only" operated for 41 years. 

Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear challenged NRC claims that Palisades was compliant with earthquake safety regulations, pointing out that its dry cask storage of high-level radioactive waste, just 100 yards from the waters of Lake Michigan, violates NRC earthquake safety regulations, according to retired NRC dry cask storage inspector Dr. Ross Landsman, who has been warning about it since 1994. Kevin also pointed to an NRC media release, which reveals that earthquake risks are under major review at NRC and in the nuclear power industry, including in the Great Lakes region, as at Palisades.

Gail Snyder from Homer Glen, IL, who has a summer place near Palisades, presented a powerful statement.

The St. Joe Herald-Palladium reported on this story. It quoted Maynard Kaufman of Bangor, who: "said the NRC should have anticipated more general nuclear safety questions from the public. 'Tonight's performance didn't reassure me in the least,' he said. 'I think this is a distraction to the underlying issues. This is an old plant. I think this is a terribly dangerous way to make electricity. We're not fooled by this little performance.' "

Holland, MI radio station WHTC also reported on the meeting. It quoted Kevin as calling for Palisades' shutdown, "period." However, it should be pointed out that Kevin was born and raised in Kalamazoo, and still represents his hometown chapter of Don't Waste MI, on the board of directors, so isn't exactly an "outside" agitator (in fact, he was around a couple years before Palisades fired up, so he was there first!). And Palisades experienced not a "couple," but rather five un-planned shutdowns, as well as additional incidents, in 2011 alone.

WSBT also reported on this story, quoting Starla Montoya from Grand Junction: “It's really becoming senseless that we have to worry about this in our community, and with no plan if something does happen because they're just telling us this is safe." 

The Kalamazoo Gazette also reported on this story, quoting concerned citizens:

"Living between two nuclear power plants [Cook and Palisades], Bette Pierman has some concerns about Palisades nuclear power plant. 

'I guess I'm looking for reassurances that they (the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) are holding this company accountable,' the Benton Harbor woman said Wednesday...

Some opponents of nuclear energy said they worry a nuclear disaster could happen at Palisades.

Michael Martin, a 69-year-old Gobles resident, said it comes down to nuclear plant technology being too dangerous. He contends that Palisades should be shut down.

'I don't think this is going to change anything,' Martin said of Wednesday's meeting. 'We've been having the meetings since day one — it's getting old.' "

ABC57 also reported on this story. However, it inaccurately downplayed an accident that even NRC has determined had "substantial significance to safety." ABC57 reported:

"...Another violation came when an employee did not follow procedure when working on an electrical panel. The employee caused a short to occur which set off a chain reaction that forced the entire plant to shut down.

Again, there was no immediate danger, and the complications the short created were easily handled."

Actually, the employee himself was nearly electrocuted. Half of the control room lost electricity. Nearly two dozen systems, many safety related, went instantly haywire. It took several hours for order to be restored, with a significant safety incident growing more likely as the clock ticked. Plant personnel worked with a growing sense of urgency to bring the plant under control. The pressurizer and a steam generator filled 97-98% full of liquid water, coming just 9 minutes from "going solid," which would have resulted in loss of control over pressure and temperature, and the potential for pipe breaks. NRC determined that a single error by plant workers would not have provided any recovery time. Given Palisades' degraded steam generators, corroded reactor vessel head, and the most embrittled reactor pressure vessel in the country, there were multiple pathways to a Loss of Coolant Accident in the reactor core, that could have then caused a meltdown and catastrophic radioactivity release. Top Entergy official at Palisades, Tony Vitale, said at a Jan. 11th NRC meeting that he would never let such a thing happen again, given the look on the face of the control room supervisor coming off the floor after the near-miss. Another top plant official said at the same Jan. 11th meeting that he could have gotten someone killed that day -- the electrician who was nearly electrocuted.

Michigan Public Radio reported the filing of a 10CFR2.206 emergency enforcement petition by Thomas Saporito, calling for NRC to "fine the company a million dollars, revoke its operating license, and shut down the plant until the safety is independently confirmed."

Lessons from Fukushima: new Greenpeace report a warning on nuclear risks

Jan Beranek blogs on a new report just published by Greenpeace International on the "Lessons of Fukushima." He provides links to a 12 page executive summary, as well as the full 52 page report.

"Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response"

Yoichi Funabashi and Kay Kitazawa are chairman of the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, and staff director of the Foundation's Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident, respectively. They have published an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) entitled "Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response." It's an overview of a 400 page study on the lessons to be learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe, first reported by the New York Times on Feb. 27. The BAS abstract reads:

"On March 11, 2011, an earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The emerging crisis at the plant was complex, and, to make matters worse, it was exacerbated by communication gaps between the government and the nuclear industry. An independent investigation panel, established by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, reviewed how the government, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), and other relevant actors responded. In this article, the panel's program director writes about their findings and how these players were thoroughly unprepared on almost every level for the cascading nuclear disaster. This lack of preparation was caused, in part, by a public myth of "absolute safety" that nuclear power proponents had nurtured over decades and was aggravated by dysfunction within and between government agencies and Tepco, particularly in regard to political leadership and crisis management. The investigation also found that the tsunami that began the nuclear disaster could and should have been anticipated and that ambiguity about the roles of public and private institutions in such a crisis was a factor in the poor response at Fukushima."

The article announces that the full report, in Japanese only, would be released at the end of Feb. However, the English translation will not be ready until sometime this summer.

Davis-Besse blames Blizzard of '78 for containment cracks, but critics charge that's merely a "snow job of convenience"

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)The long awaited First Energy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) "root cause analysis" on extensive cracking of the Davis-Besse concrete containment shield building was published on Feb. 28th. Astoundingly, the nuclear utility blames a severe blizzard in January 1978, and the fact that it failed to apply weatherproofing to the exterior of its containment. Asked why FENOC and its predecessors had failed to apply sealant from 1971 (when the shield building was first constructed) and 2012, FENOC spokeswoman Jennifer Young said simply it had not been required. When asked why other safety-significant concrete structures on site had been sealed, Young said their concrete exteriors appeared splotchy, so a coating was applied for cosmetic purposes.

The Toledo Blade quoted U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, pictured left) and Don't Waste Michigan's Michael Keegan:

"Every homeowner knows you paint a house not just for decoration, but to protect it from the elements," Mr. Kucinich said, repeating his assertion that the plant should be shut down until the shield building's strength is thoroughly assessed.

And Michael Keegan, a representative of Don't Waste Michigan -- one of several anti-nuclear organizations fighting FirstEnergy's petition for a 20-year license renewal after Davis-Besse's initial operating permit expires in five years -- called the Blizzard of 1978 explanation a "snow job of convenience."

"While it may be true that the extreme weather damaged the concrete, what other assaults have occurred since that time?" he asked. "How is it that [FirstEnergy] can suggest that they'll seal it now, and the damage will be arrested? The damage goes down to the rebar and is structural."

Kucinich has long watchdogged Davis-Besse. His assertive questioning of FENOC and NRC, his revelations to the public, and his success at winning an NRC public meeting on Jan. 5th -- with the backing of NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko -- have been the main sources of information about the significance of the cracking since it was first revealed in October. Based on this information, Beyond Nuclear and Don't Waste Michigan, allied with Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario and the Green Party of Ohio, filed a cracked containment contention on Jan. 10th against Davis-Besse's proposed 20 year license extension, which it defended on Feb. 14th.

Kucinich's  Feb. 8th revelation that the outer steel reinforcement rebar of the concrete containment shield building is now considered no longer structurally functional due to the severe, extensive cracking led to the environmental coalition, represented by Toledo attorney Terry Lodge, filing a supplement to its contention on Feb. 27th.

The Port Clinton News Herald also reported on this story, and the Toledo Blade's Tom Henry editorialized:

"Even if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission accepts FirstEnergy Corp.'s explanation of the cracks in the outer containment shield of its Davis-Besse nuclear power plant, the agency must look more closely at the utility's request to extend the plant's operating license...

Whether or not Davis-Besse's cracks amount only to engineering artifacts, they suggest a larger problem with due diligence. The NRC should investigate concrete industry standards and codes to determine whether Davis-Besse complies with them. The commission also needs to review critically the plant's safety analysis report.

The NRC must drive home a point it has made to FirstEnergy before: Minimal compliance with nuclear industry standards is not good enough -- especially at a plant the utility wants to operate for another two decades."

"Demonic" reality of Fukushima, versus absurdity of NRC

NRC file photo of Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3 in PennsylvaniaIn the days following the March 11, 2011 beginning of the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe, chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano repeatedly reassured the Japanese public, news media, and world community that there was "no immediate health risk" from mounting radioactive releases from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. His choice of words was very similar to the U.S. nuclear power establishment's during the Three Mile Island meltdown of 1979, as captured by Rosalie Bertell's classic anti-nuclear primer No Immediate Danger? Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth.

However, as the New York Times revealed Monday, Edano and his colleagues at the highest levels of the Japanese federal government were actually worried about a worst-case scenario, a "demonic chain reaction" of atomic reactor meltdowns spreading catastrophic amounts of deadly radioactivity from the three operating units at Fukushima Daiichi (as well as multiple high-level radioactive waste storage pools there), to the four operating reactors and pools at Fukushima Daini (just 7 miles south, which itself avoided catastrophe thanks to a single surviving offsite power line; several offsite power lines were lost to the earthquake, and all diesel generators were lost to the tsunami), to the operating reactor and pool at Tokai (much closer to Tokyo). They feared clouds of deadly radioactivity could have forced plant workers to abandon Daiichi, Daini, and Tokai, leading to meltdowns at all operating reactors, not to mention pool fires at all units. 

Regarding such a nightmare scenario, eerily similar to what Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa depicted in Dreams, the New York Times reported:

“We would lose Fukushima Daini, then we would lose Tokai,” Mr. Edano is quoted as saying, naming two other nuclear plants. “If that happened, it was only logical to conclude that we would also lose Tokyo itself.”

On March 13, 2011, even as Fukushima Daiichi's reactors were melting down and exploding, and its storage pools at risk of boiling or draining dry and the high-level radioactive waste catching fire, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided false assurance to the U.S. public and news media, that no harmful levels of radioactive fallout would reach U.S. territories. However, at the very same time, we now know, NRC was itself worried about potentially hazardous levels of radioactive Iodine-131 reaching Alaska.

Just last week, NRC held public meetings about its newly unveiled, so-called "State of the Art Reactor Consequence Analysis" (SOARCA). One meeting took place near the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania (see photo, above left), nor far from Philadelphia or Washington D.C., where two General Electric Boiling Water Reactors of the Mark I design (GE BWR Mark I) operate. Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear's Reactor Oversight Project Director, attended and testified.

SOARCA is meant to replace a 1982 study, "Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences" (CRAC-2). CRAC-2 made shocking projections of casualties and property damage that would result downwind of a catastrophic radioactivity release from an accident at either Peach Bottom Unit 2 or 3: 72,000 "peak early fatalities"; 45,000 "peak early injuries"; 37,000 "peak cancer deaths"; and $119 billion in property damages. But CRAC-2 was based on 1970 U.S. Census data. Populations have grown significantly in the past 42 years, so casualty figures would now be much worse. And when adjusted for inflation, property damages would now top $265 billion, in 2010 dollars. Such shocking figures may explain why NRC, which commissioned the study, tried to conceal its results from the public. But U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) made the information public in congressional hearings.

Of course, as shown by Fukushima Daiichi, a major accident at either Peach Bottom reactor could very easily spread to the second reactor. And, as Yukio Edano -- who now serves as Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI), with direct oversight of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) -- warned about Fukushima Daini and Tokai, a catastrophic radioactivity release from Peach Bottom could spread to other nearby nuclear power plants, such as Limerick Units 1 and 2, Three Mile Island Unit 1, and Salem Units 1 and 2/Hope Creek, forcing workers to evacuate and putting many additional reactors' and high-level radioactive waste storage pools' safety at risk.

Despite all this, NRC's SOARCA -- by assuming almost all radioactivity will be contained during an accident, any releases will happen slowly and in a predictable fashion, that emergency evacuation will come off without a hitch, etc. -- claims that casualties will be low, or even non-existent. Such false assurances fall flat on their face in light of the lessons learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe, including the new revelations described above.

In fact, Peach Bottom 2 and 3 are bigger in size than Fukushima's Units 1 to 4. Peach Bottom 2 and 3 are both 1,112 Megawatt-electric (MW-e) reactors, 2,224 MW-e altogether. Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 was 460 MW-e. Units 2 and 3 were each 784 MW-e. Altogether, they were "only" 2,028 MW-e, smaller in size than Peach Bottom 2 and 3. The same is true regarding high-level radioactive wastes. The Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4 storage pools contained a total of 354 tons of irradiated nuclear fuel. According to the U.S. Dept. of Energy's Final Environmental Impact Statement for Yucca Mountain (Feb. 2002), and accounting for average annual discharges since, Peach Bottom nuclear power plant, however, stores well over 1,500 tons of irradiated nuclear fuel on-site. Although Peach Bottom has installed dry cask storage, the vast majority of irradiated fuel is still stored in the Mark I elevated, and vulnerable, pools. Beyond Nuclear recently published a backgrounder on the risk of Mark I high-level radioactive waste storage pools.

NRC should immediately withdraw its absurd SOARCA report, and get about the business of protecting public health, safety, and the environment -- its mandate -- rather than doing the nuclear power industry's bidding by downplaying risks as at Peach Bottom 2 and 3. A good place to start would be immediately and permanently shutting down all 23 operating Mark Is in the U.S., including Peach Bottom 2 and 3, as Beyond Nuclear's "Freeze Our Fukushimas" campaign calls for.

(This Beyond Nuclear article is featured on this weekend's Counterpunch website.)