Nuclear Regulatory Commission not facing up to flood risks
Nuclear Power Flood Risk: NRC Insiders Say Agency Continues To Look The Other Way HUFFINGON POST Tom Zeller Jr. 03/29/2013 According to findings made public earlier this month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently uncovered potentially significant flooding vulnerabilities at two Tennessee nuclear power plants and, after a thorough investigation, the agency aggressively sanctioned the errant operator for several safety violations — although the facilities were permitted to continue operating.
An internal document quietly released this week by the agency, however, suggests that some NRC employees with extensive knowledge of the threat believe the agency is violating its own regulatory mission by allowing at least one reactor to stay online, given the potential for flooding that would likely hobble core cooling equipment and possibly trigger a meltdown.
The odds of this happening, of course, are small. But the NRC is reviewing a variety of risks at United States nuclear power plants in the aftermath of the 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima-Daiichi facility in Japan, which succumbed to a rare but devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Among the risks being considered by the agency is the potential at several U.S. plants on inland waterways to suffer damage if upstream dams are breached or otherwise fail.
Concerns that the NRC was not acting swiftly or decisively enough on the upstream dam risk were raised late last year by two other engineers inside the agency. Steps are being taken to shore up flood defenses at several plants, but no facility has been shuttered by regulators as a result of the heightened scrutiny.
In a memo dated March 19 and posted to the NRC website on Monday, Carl F. Lyon and Patrick D. Milano, both members of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, argue that a rare but consequential rainfall is all that would be needed to disable cooling systems for a reactor at the Watts Bar nuclear station — referred to as “WBN Unit 1” — near Spring City, Tenn.
“Only the probable maximum precipitation event, without a concurrent earthquake or tsunami or any other accident,” the two employees wrote, “is needed at WBN Unit 1 to produce a loss of all decay heat removal systems.”…… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/nuclear-power-flood-risk_n_2979098.html
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- January 2026 (127)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS



Leave a comment