America's Reckless Nuclear Policies Have Got to End

[kristopher]

Tulsi Gabbard
Candidate for Hawaii's Second Congressional District; Member of the Hawaii National Guard
http://votetulsi.com/

America's Reckless Nuclear Policies Have Got to End
Posted: 03/20/2012

On March 10 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 20-year license extension for the Yankee nuclear power plant in Vermont. Hour laters in Japan, tsunami waves smashed into the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant, which contained reactors with the same design as Yankee's, setting in motion the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

The Fukushima-Daiichi disaster resulted in irreparable damage to wildlife, agriculture and the surrounding community. Land within 20 kilometers of the plant was deemed an "exclusion zone" that effectively sealed it from the rest of the world. Livestock and other animals affected in the zone were simply abandoned to die. Nearly 2,000 people were evacuated, likely to never see their homes again.

Less than a year on from this tragedy, giant corporations have used their influence to get approval for opening a new nuclear power plant right here in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently signed off on two reactors to be built in Georgia even though their safety mechanisms have never been tested on an active nuclear plant.

Even more worrying is the NRC's continued approval of licenses for aging nuclear reactors -- dozens of outdated facilities continue to receive approval to operate for the next 20 years despite their age and careless placement. The Indian Point Nuclear Plant is located just 38 miles from New York City and sits on a seismic fault. Its license expires in a few years and its operator has applied for a 20 year extension from the NRC.

These decisions require...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tulsi-gabbard/americas-reckless-nuclear_b_1358997.html

[COLGATE4]

1. More 'the sky is falling' rhetoric from a would-be

Congressperson. While there are good arguments to be made against nuclear-produced electricity (chief among which are the economics), the relicensing of existing nuke plants is not one of them. I worked for years with a company which had two nuclear plants (and did the first decommissioning of a nuclear plant in the U.S.) and can state with authority that the relicensing process is neither rapid nor casual. It is an exceptionally lengthy, involved process which takes into account not only all available scientific data relevant to the inquiry but also requires public input before final approval. These plants are not (nor were they ever) Chernobyl. They are instead amazing, generally exceedingly well-run technological masterpieces whose greatest fault is that they were all "one offs", i.e. individually designed and built. There is little to no room for economies of scale and they have proven just too costly to ever produce truly competitive electricity.

[kristopher]

2. A lot of informed people disagree with your insider assessment.

You confirm the adjective "elaborate" but that is about all.

"By rewriting history, plant owners are making it easier to extend the lives of dozens of reactors in a relicensing process that resembles nothing more than an elaborate rubber stamp."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112714785

[XemaSab]

3. Have you ever worked on a relicensing project?

You should sometime; it's interesting.

[COLGATE4]

7. Thanks. Way too easy to scream 'the sky is falling'

without having any idea about the subject.

[COLGATE4]

5. "A lot of people disagree". Fine. Who are they

and what is their expertise with nuc plants. My statement is based on being intimately involved in the relicensing process of a nuclear plant in the 1990's. There is no 'rewriting history' involved. The amount of reporting, checking, double checking and process is absolutely staggering. A relicensing effort takes at least three full years, probably more now. Stating that the plant owners 'rewrite history' is not only implausible, but also impossible.

[Kolesar]

4. "These plants are not Chernobyl" -- until the next one fucks up

...and the citizens of that country abandon nuclear power.

Your post is RW bullshit.

[COLGATE4]

6. Nothing RW about it. I have always been

and continue to be a loyal progressive Democrat. But I also have direct, inside experience with what goes into elicensing nuc plants in the U.S. There are possibilities in certain areas like Japan which is subject to all manners of natural catastrophes where perhaps a plant shouldn't be sited. But look at the record of nuclear power in the US, or in France, or in England. You can't damn an entire technology based on a crappy Russian design.

[kristopher]

8. You are Using Chernobyl as a Red Herring.

When you have a system as complex as a nuclear plant

where the consequences of failure are so potentially devastating

when you point to a specific cause for a specific mode of failure and then

claim that once that cause is proofed against you have made this complex system safe against future failure

you are not telling the truth, you are laying out a red herring.



Low probability, very high consequence failure cannot not dealt with the same way as failures that have far more limited consequences.

Beyond our imagination: Fukushima and the problem of assessing risk
By M. V. Ramana | 19 April 2011
Article Highlights

- Severe accidents at nuclear reactors have occurred much more frequently than what risk-assessment models predicted.
- The probabilistic risk assessment method does a poor job of anticipating accidents in which a single event, such as a tsunami, causes failures in multiple safety systems.
- Catastrophic nuclear accidents are inevitable, because designers and risk modelers cannot envision all possible ways in which complex systems can fail.

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/beyond-our-imagination-fukushima-and-the-problem-of-assessing-risk

[COLGATE4]

12. No - I was responding to a post that used

Chernobyl as the case for not using nuclear plants. I believe the record of the US nuclear industry speaks for itself in terms of safety and/or potential failures. BTW, most 'failures' at nuc plants have no consequences whatsoever. A failure under NRC regs is anything that is an anolmaly, even a burn-out light bulb. There's no point discussing something when the other person already has their mind made up, with or without benefit of facts. But surely running around with your hair on fire screaming "Doom, Doom" doesn't advance the argument.

[kristopher]

14. You were making exactly the red herring I noted

The fact that you didn't raise the issue is not relevant to the content of your argument. The idea that a burned out light bulb is a failure is another argument in the same vein; it is designed to promote the idea that nuclear power is safe, when it most definitely is subject to massive, extremely consequential failures.

What would you be saying right now if:
The winds had been from the NNE during the Fukushima event?
TEPCO had followed their protocol and abandoned efforts to contain the meltdowns when radiation spiked. (THE Prime Minister ordered them to stay and continue the fight)?
Or if the accident had occurred a few hours later and the hundreds of temporary workers who handled to response were all on their way out of the area and back to Tokyo?

All of those factors were pure chance - they were not controlled or planned. If any of them had not favored the containment of the situation, more than 40 million people would have been required to evacuate.

[COLGATE4]

15. As I already mentioned, there is no constructive

discussion with someone whose mind is closed to fact.

[kristopher]

16. Such as those who work for the nuclear industry.

[COLGATE4]

19. Oooooh. Boogey Man. "You work for the

(dramatic pause here) NOOKLEAR INDUSTRY". No, I worked for a company which, among other of its multiple generating facilities (gas, electric, hydro and wind) also had 2 operating nuclear plants. I don't give a flying fuck about the nuclear industry per se. My only beef is with the hyper-paranoia about a technology based on little or no reliable information and impervious to considering any facts which contradict that paranoia. As I stated much earlier in this discussion I believe nuclear plants in the US are destined to become extinct because of cost. Doesn't bother me a bit. But having seen safe operation over a more than 40 year period for these plants I do not believe that there is some inevitable catastrophe which is bound to prove the detractors (finally) right.

[kristopher]

21. Ooooh, snark and ridicule in place of reason...

You "don't believe there is some inevitable disaster....". That's fine, but it is far from a "fact". The evidence indicates that your faith is, in FACT, misplaced. You still sound like the dipshits in Japan that assured that country's people that nuclear was both safe and essential. Neither claim was true.

When you have a system as complex as a nuclear plant

where the consequences of failure are so potentially devastating

when you point to a specific cause for a specific mode of failure and then

claim that once that cause is proofed against you have made this complex system safe against future failure

you are not telling the truth, you are laying out a red herring.



Low probability, very high consequence failure cannot not dealt with the same way as failures that have far more limited consequences.

Beyond our imagination: Fukushima and the problem of assessing risk
By M. V. Ramana | 19 April 2011
Article Highlights

- Severe accidents at nuclear reactors have occurred much more frequently than what risk-assessment models predicted.
- The probabilistic risk assessment method does a poor job of anticipating accidents in which a single event, such as a tsunami, causes failures in multiple safety systems.
- Catastrophic nuclear accidents are inevitable, because designers and risk modelers cannot envision all possible ways in which complex systems can fail.

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/beyond-our-imagination-fukushima-and-the-problem-of-assessing-risk

[COLGATE4]

22. A response like that only deserves snark and ridicule

[madokie]

17. Why are you trying then

You are the one who has his mind made up and there is no changing that now is there.

[COLGATE4]

18. Facts are pesky little things, aren't they? It's much

more fun to run around, scream and shout about hypothetical problems (a/k/a "Parade of Horribles&quot rather than look at what the actual facts are. I'm not trying to persuade anyone - just stating facts which I know from personal, first-hand experience to be correct. As someone once said, 'you're entitled to your opinion but not to your facts'.

[madokie]

20. With your facts explain Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

According to what it sounds like you're saying that couldn't have happened. Are we ready to take a chance on rendering a large section of our country off limits? I doubt we are. The trouble with nuclear reactors is once something like what is going on in japan today with those reactors happens no one know exactly what to do next. praying doesn't count either as it falls on deaf ears. If the spent rod pool in number 4 colapses all hell will break loose and many people throughout the world will die. You know like dead.
You'll be wasting your time with me with the argument you're making with Kris so don't even bother cause at best you'll join the others on my ignore list now who have tried this very shit. I've no time for bullshit nor for lies. Oh and yes I have my mind made up and until you or they can show me they have a verifiable way of dealing with the unthinkable you're wasting your energy typing.

[COLGATE4]

23. None so blind as those who will not see

nor so deaf as those who will not hear.

[kristopher]

24. That's just what C4 is saying.

It is just one more variation on the standard theme of "trust us not your lying eyes; we know nuclear is safe because we work in the nuclear industry"

They always make the same unfounded claims and then fall back on being condescending when its pointed out that the evidence doesn't support their claims.

[madokie]

25. So very true

I've been hearing that shit for so long I don't care to hear it any more
After what we've seen with fukushima it blows me away that anyone can continue to shill for the nuclear industry. If fukushima doesn't open ones eyes as to the dangers involved I no longer care to hear what they have to say on the subject

[AtheistCrusader]

9. In fairness

This doesn't mention that the exclusion zone inhibited search and rescue operations related to the quake in that area.

This likely cost lives.

When planning for a reactor failure, you not only have to consider the radiation risk, but you have to consider it compounding whatever disaster led to the reactor failing in the first place. (Assuming natural/man made external disaster)

[kristopher]

10. I have no doubt that it cost lives.

In fact, I'm the first here to point out that yet another of the consequences of Fukushima was the negative impact it was having on disaster response in the entire region. The most heavily populated areas are sandwiched between the mountains and the oceans and Fukushima cut the lines of transportation right in the middle.

Could you make the link between this and the OP a bit more clear? Why should it have been part of the article?

[AtheistCrusader]

11. The NRC extended the license on Vermont Yankee.

that was suspended, and they are thinking about extending it again.

Vermont Yankee is a General Electric BWR, Mark 1 containment. Just like Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors 1-4.

It's within burping distance of Boston, which is in fact, downwind via prevailing winds. That area is prone to periodic earthquakes of MMIS ratings as high as the shaking experienced at the Dai-Ichi plant. The New England area has very interesting geological features.
The area even has a considerable tsunami risk.

Extending the license on that particular plant, ignoring everything else, is practically begging for a repeat. Reactors 1-3 were doomed before the tsunami wave arrived. The cooling systems broke based on the ground accelerations.

Same containment. Same reactor. Same age. Same earthquake risk.

If that's not reckless, I don't know what is.

[kristopher]

13. Ok, thanks, now I understand.

Look at the population map at the bottom of this article
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43556350/ns/us_news-environment/#.T7KGMicnec7

I think it is pretty clear that once you predicate licensing on the admission that large releases are in inevitable part of the technology, and the potential for impact on local population becomes a major factor in the decision, it becomes impossible to keep the fleet in operation.