America’s Nuclear Nightmare - Regulators are ignoring the risks and boosting industry profits

[flamingdem]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-s-nuclear-nightmare-20110427

The U.S. has 31 reactors just like Japan’s — but regulators are ignoring the risks and boosting industry profits

April 27, 2011 9:00 AM ET

Five days after a massive earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, triggering the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, America's leading nuclear regulator came before Congress bearing good news: Don't worry, it can't happen here. In the aftermath of the Japanese catastrophe, officials in Germany moved swiftly to shut down old plants for inspection, and China put licensing of new plants on hold. But Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reassured lawmakers that nothing at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors warranted any immediate changes at U.S. nuclear plants. Indeed, 10 days after the earthquake in Japan, the NRC extended the license of the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor — a virtual twin of Fukushima — for another two decades. The license renewal was granted even though the reactor's cooling tower had literally fallen down, and the plant had repeatedly leaked radioactive fluid.

more at link

[RC]

1. Which nuclear reactors are vulnerable to tsunamis here in the United States?

There was no real problem at Fukushima till the tsunami hit. That was what caused almost all of the damage.

More spin and fear mongering.

[flamingdem]

2. Many are built on or near earthquake faults or in tsunami zones

such as Diablo Canyon, San Onofre and Indian Point. It's impossible to evacuate the NY Metropolitan area.

[PamW]

5. There are tsunamis, and there are TSUNAMIS

Many are built on or near earthquake faults or in tsunami zones such as Diablo Canyon.
========================================

There are tsunamis, and there are TSUNAMIS.

The faults off the coast of Japan are subduction faults. Those are the types that
will produce stronger tsunamis due to the up / down motion of the quake. The recent
Richter 9 quake produced a tsunami that hit the Fukushima plant with a 40 foot wave,
which over-topped the plant's 20 foot high seawall.

The faults off the coast of California near Diablo Canyon are lateral slip faults that
don't produce as strong a tsunami as does the subduction type.

Additionally, Diablo Canyon sits on an bluff 85 feet above the water. Therefore, if a
wave the size of the one that hit Fukushima were to come ashore at Diablo Canyon, it
would still not reach the plant; by a safety factor of over 2.

Additionally, Diablo Canyon is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide
protection for the backup diesel generators. Additionally, if you look at the the
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant with Google Earth, you will see that just northeast of
the plant is a hill that overlooks the plant that contains two large reservoirs of gravity-fed
cooling water to cool the plant in the case of cooling system malfunction or station blackout.

Diablo Canyon has better protection than Fukushima.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

7. One point of disagreement.

"Therefore, if a wave the size of the one that hit Fukushima were to come ashore at Diablo Canyon, it
would still not reach the plant; by a safety factor of over 2"

Waves pile up when they hit the shoreline and have absolutely no place left to go. In valleys that concentrated the wave in Fukushima prefecture, the wave drove up much higher than 40 feet. 85 feet is CERTAINLY better, but depending on the approach, the velocity of the wave, and the layout of the land leading up to the shore (and the shore itself) safety factor may not actually be 'double'. Lots of variables in play.


And the cooling lines from the gravity reservoirs may or may not survive a 9.0 EQ, but your core contention is correct, Diablo has better protection than Fukushima Dai-ichi.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Many.

Most reactors are on a river, lake, or ocean boundary for access to cooling water.

In a large lake, a Tsunami is called a Seiche. There is a limiting scale of course, but the plants can, in some cases, given certain circumstances, be innundated with water. Browns Ferry is an example of a site at some risk from the river it uses for cooling. The Tennessee River could easily jump its banks, reverse flow for a time, or do other strange things in a strong earthquake on the NMSZ.

It's certainly a risk, but I think a small one.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Wow... The whole thread.. Sonofa.

[flamingdem]

8. Hey I missed the "discussion" lol nt

[Turbineguy]

9. It could happen here.

The genesis of the Chernobyl disaster was political and not an engineering or technical failure. That was because in the Soviet Union political considerations trumped everything. If republicans take over, political considerations will definitely trump good sense and safety.

So yes, it could happen here and if these idiots gain more power, it becomes even more possible. This, NIMBY and the anti-nuke focus on the wrong things make it even more likely.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Actually, the failure was engineering, and operator error, and no safety systems to mitigate

operator error.

Political constraints like proceeding with the test at partial power, or ordering unit 3 to stay online only exacerbated the problem.