The Hurricane This Time

Oyster Creek

It’s so annoying when things don’t go your way. Take Hurricane Sandy:

Critics of U.S. nuclear-safety requirements said a few breaks, including that reactors such as Oyster Creek were idled for refueling, prevented a disaster, and that plants need stiffer government standards to cope with a likely increase in the number and severity of storms.

This is akin to a losing politician saying that he would have won if only his competitor had committed adultery (murder, treason, take your pick). If only Oyster Creek had run into major problems, it would have proven how dangerous it is – ah, if only. 

This amusing example of  negative wish fulfillment comes from a Bloomberg story about nuclear energy facilities weathering Hurricane Sandy quite well. Even if there was no reason to expect any of the 34 reactors in the storm’s path to develop major problems, the post-Fukushima environment in which the storm took place means that we must expect stories like this – though the actual content is now differently organized than it was after, say, the Virginia earthquake. The lede is no longer – well, like the paragraph above.

Instead:

Hurricane Sandy’s wrath shows that U.S. regulators should swiftly implement nuclear-safety rules developed after Japan’s Fukushima disaster, a top lawmaker said, as industry officials said the lack of major problems during the storm showed that they were ready. 

Although the top lawmaker is not a great supporter of nuclear energy, the industry broadly agrees with his sentiment. In fact, the story even focuses on FLEX (an industry initiative the NRC agrees is a useful approach to disaster preparedness) though without naming it:

Reactor owners have begun buying mobile equipment, including pumps and generators to have in the event of an emergency. While Chicago-based Exelon has installed portable, diesel-fueled pumps at its facilities in response to the NRC’s Fukushima regulations, the company didn’t need to use them to respond to Hurricane Sandy, David Tillman, a spokesman for Exelon Nuclear, said in an e-mail.

If there are going to be stories about nuclear facilities not falling over every time nature raises its ferocious head and roars, reporters stuck with the assignment should reference what  Kasia Klimasinska and Brian Wingfield have done here. Well worth a read.---
The tone of the Bloomberg story echoed through a number of stories I read about the hurricane’s impact on the energy sector, whether nuclear or not. National Geographic's story covers several sectors; when discussing nuclear, it bluntly sets its interest in the shadow of Fukushima:

Oyster Creek shares the same design as Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant, which suffered a catastrophic meltdown after the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. 

Oyster Creek again. But:

At Oyster Creek that didn't happen. The plant declared an "alert" for 36 hours when winds and heavy rains generated tides 6.8 feet above mean sea level at its water intake on the Forked River. But the water never rose high enough to impact the operation of plant equipment. When the electricity from the New Jersey grid went out, two locomotive-sized backup diesel generators started automatically and continued to power the crucial pumps that circulate cooling fluid through the reactor and the pool where spent fuel rods are stored. Cooling systems also continued to function at all three other nuclear reactors that experienced shutdowns—Indian Point and Nine Mile Point in New York, and Salem in New Jersey.

The writer here even garnered a similar sourpuss reaction as at Bloomberg, this time from David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists:

The Fukushima plant wasn't of appreciably lower quality or poorly constructed compared to the U.S. plants," Lochbaum said. "It was given a much more severe challenge. None of our reactors would have survived that either."

That’s called a bald assertion, with no evidence at all to back it up. 

Another story worth a fuller read.
---
The coverage I've seen has been largely positive, if informed by intimations of potential trouble. By way of contrast, over at Forbes, writer James Conca goes all out for nuclear energy:

Nuclear did best of all. Natural gas, not so well. Houses built on shifting sand, very badly.

Nuclear power plants had no problems riding out the storm. Although many ideologues tried to stoke fear about how we were going to have a Fukushima here in America, and how we only narrowly averted it, there was never any real danger.

That’s exactly correct, though as we’ve seen, writers have been fair in noting that the plants did not crumple despairingly at the sight of Sandy. But these other stories at least faintly imply, and included quotes from people who directly said, that the industry dodged a bullet. Oyster Creek was being refueled – whew! Indian Point didn’t have to face a tsunami – phew! In reality, no bullet was dodged because the hammer was never cocked – Oyster Creek and other facilities operated exactly as expected.

Conca’s article acts as a partial corrective to the worried tone found elsewhere by directly making this point - which happens to be true.

---The stories linked here all do a good and thorough job. What’s most important about them from my perspective is that they recognize – after the wild weather ride of the last two years – that nuclear energy plants, much like other power plants, are well able to withstand the elements. 

Read More

Guest Post: Responding to Anti-Nuclear Fearmongering

Earlier today, the Washington Post published an opinion piece by Phillip Lipscy, Kenji Kushida and and Trevor Incert entitled, "Protecting nuclear plants from nature's worst." Steve Kerekes, NEI's Director of Media Relations, left the following comment in response at WashingtonPost.com:

This is a pathetic case of opportunistic fear-mongering. To the extent that there really is public concern about U.S. nuclear plants’ ability to withstand extreme events, it centers around what MIGHT happen in fantastical scenarios. This week, here’s what actually DID happen: The largest Atlantic storm ever recorded slammed into the New Jersey shore, creating record human and property devastation, yet every nuclear energy facility in this super-storm’s path – including the oldest nuclear plant in operation – managed through it safely and expertly with no threat or damage. Every … single … one.

Does this mean we should stop looking for safer ways to operate? Of course not, and we never will. At this very moment, the public has the opportunity to comment to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on draft guidance that nuclear energy facilities would use to perform flooding hazard assessments as part of the response activities under way to the Fukushima Daiichi accident. This is being done with an eye toward providing another layer of protection above and beyond those that already exist and that make nuclear energy facilities exceedingly capable of withstanding extreme events of all kinds.

The authors – who somehow seem to think that natural events can affect only nuclear facilities and nothing else around them – are simply are wrong in claiming that facilities on the Eastern seaboard have “minimal protection” against inundation. The Salem/Hope Creek plant, for example, is designed for a category 4 hurricane arriving during high tide and a full moon. During Hurricane Sandy, the plant saw river levels consistent with some of the highest levels in its past (between 97 and 98 feet). This was still below the facility’s site grade and more than 20 feet below the water levels it is designed for.

As objective observers seek to better cope with devastating events like Hurricane Sandy, it’s a pretty safe bet that they’ll identify other priorities for action before they feel a need to better fortify the nuclear energy facilities that are our nation’s largest source of low-carbon electricity.

For the latest information on how the nuclear industry has been applying lessons learned from Fukushima since the March 2011 accident, please visit SafetyFirst.nei.org.

Read More

NEI Press Release: Nuclear Energy Facilities Prove Resilience During Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy from space.

NEI Has just issued the following press release concerning nuclear energy facilities impacted by Hurricane Sandy:

Nuclear Energy Facilities Prove Resilience During Hurricane Sandy

Washington, D.C., October 30, 2012--Thirty-four nuclear energy facilities in the path of Hurricane Sandy have responded well and safely to this powerful storm, demonstrating their resilience against severe natural forces.

Careful planning and comprehensive preparations days in advance of the storm paid off at all of the facilities, which were prepared to take the steps necessary to maintain safety against high winds, record flooding and disturbances on the regional electric grid. Highly trained reactor operators and emergency response personnel stationed at the plants throughout the storm were able to take actions beyond their usual duties to protect the power plants and communities that surround them. As Hurricane Sandy moves beyond the mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states after knocking out electricity to seven million customers in 13 states, nuclear facility operators are conducting thorough inspections to ensure that all systems and equipment are ready to maintain the facilities in a safe condition.

Of the 34 nuclear facilities from South Carolina to Vermont in Hurricane Sandy’s path, 24 continued to operate safely and generate electricity throughout the event. Seven were already shut down for refueling or inspection, and three in New Jersey or New York safely shut down, as designed, because of storm conditions or grid disturbances. Inspectors from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have been stationed at each nuclear energy facility to oversee preparation for and recovery from the storm.

“Hurricane Sandy once again demonstrates the robust construction of nuclear energy facilities, which are built to withstand extreme flooding and hurricane-force winds that are beyond that historically reported for each area,” said Marvin S. Fertel, president and chief executive officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute. “Beyond the physical strength of these nuclear power plants, the professional crews that operate and maintain them take exacting precautions as significant storms approach. They also coordinate with local, state and federal emergency response officials.

“Our facilities’ ability to weather the strongest Atlantic tropical storm on record is due to rigorous precautions taken in advance of the storm. In the days prior to Sandy storming the Atlantic coast, nuclear plant operators took a series of actions outlined in their emergency preparedness plans,” Fertel said. “These include securing or moving any equipment that could possibly become airborne due to high winds and verifying that weather-tight doors and water intakes are prepared. Each plant site also has numerous emergency backup diesel generators that are tested and ready to provide electricity for critical operations if electric power from the grid is lost.”

As a precaution, a reactor will be shut down at least two hours before the onset of hurricane-force winds at the site, typically between 70 and 75 miles per hour. If there is a loss of off-site power during or following a hurricane, reactors automatically shut down as a precaution and the emergency backup diesel generators will begin operating to provide electrical power to plant safety systems.

“Actions taken by companies operating reactors in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast once again demonstrate that nuclear energy facilities are well protected against extreme natural events,” Fertel said.

In 2011, 24 reactors at 15 facilities from North Carolina to New England safely withstood Hurricane Irene, a category 3 hurricane. In 2005, Entergy safely shut down Waterford 3 in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, a category 5 hurricane, knocked out off-site power and damaged the regional electrical infrastructure. Florida Power & Light in 2004 safely shut down St. Lucie 1 and 2 in Florida after Hurricane Jeanne caused a loss of off-site power.

During Hurricane Sandy, Exelon Corp’s Oyster Creek reactor in New Jersey, which was shut down before the storm for a refueling outage, declared an alert on Oct. 29. The alert, the second lowest of four Nuclear Regulatory Commission action levels, was in response to high water levels at the facility’s cooling water intake structure. Exelon is in the process of restoring offsite power to the facility. Until then, Oyster Creek is being safely powered by backup diesel-driven electrical generators that have fuel to power the reactor’s safety systems for more than two weeks. The plant’s reactor and used fuel storage pool have ample water supplies for cooling.

The following is a summary of U.S. nuclear power plant performance during Hurricane Sandy (as of 11 a.m. Oct 30):

North Carolina:
Brunswick 1 and 2 – continued operating at 100 percent power.

Virginia:
Surry 1 and 2 – continued operating at 100 percent power.
North Anna 1 and 2 – continued operating at 100 percent power.

Maryland:
Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 – continued operating at 100 percent power.

New Jersey:
Oyster Creek – shut down for refueling outage; alert declared Oct. 29 due to high water level at water intake structure.
Hope Creek 1 -- continued operating at 100 percent power.
Salem 1 – manual safe shut down from 100% power on Oct. 30 due to high water level at water intake structure.
Salem 2 – shut down for refueling outage.

Pennsylvania:
Peach Bottom 2 and 3 – continued operating at 100 percent power.
Three Mile Island 1 – continued operating at 100 percent power.
Limerick 1 and 2 – safely reduced power from 100% to 50% and 22% respectively on Oct. 30 due to storm effects and at the request of the regional electric grid operator.
Beaver Valley 1 – continued operating at 100 percent power.
Beaver Valley 2 – shut down for refueling outage.
Susquehanna 1 – shut down for turbine inspection.
Susquehanna 2 – continued operating at 75 percent power.

Ohio:
Perry 1 – safely reduced power from 100% to 91% on Oct. 30 at the request of the regional electric grid operator.
Davis-Besse – continued operating at 100 percent power.

New York:
Indian Point 2 – continued operating at 100 percent power.
Indian Point 3 – manual safe shut down from 100 percent power on Oct. 30 due to an electric grid disruption.
Ginna – shut down for refueling outage.
Fitzpatrick – continued operating at 100 percent power.
Nine Mile Point 1 – manual safe shut down from 100 percent power on Oct. 29 due to an electric grid disruption.
Nine Mile Point 2 – continued operating at 100 percent power.

Connecticut:
Millstone 2 – shut down for refueling outage.
Millstone 3 – safely reduced power from 100% to 75% on Oct. 29 at the request of the electric grid operator.

Massachusetts:
Pilgrim 1 – continued operating at 100 percent power.

New Hampshire:
Seabrook 1 – shut down for refueling outage, but safely restarted Oct. 30 and is at 20 percent power.

Vermont:
Vermont Yankee – safely reduced power from 100% to 90% on Oct. 30 at the request of the regional electric grid operator.

Nuclear power plants operating in 31 states provide electricity to one of every five U.S. homes and businesses. Nuclear energy produces more electricity than any other source in Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia.

Nuclear energy facilities are designed to withstand natural occurrences greater than those encountered in the regions where they are located. They are built to withstand floods, earthquakes and high winds, and have numerous safety systems that will operate and safely shut the reactor down in the event of a loss of off-site power.

U.S. nuclear energy facilities have a long history of successfully and safely responding to natural challenges. See "Through the Decades: The History of U.S. Nuclear Energy Facilities Responding to Natural Challenges."

For the latest updates, please follow NEI's Twitter feed: @n_e_i.

Read More

Tracking Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy from space.

Like millions living along the East Coast of the U.S., everyone here at NEI is keeping a close eye at the track of Hurricane Sandy. Although NEI's offices in downtown Washington, D.C. are closed today, my colleagues and I are still working from our homes in the city and the suburbs. Please follow us all day long on our Twitter feed for the latest news impacting our member companies.

As for the nuclear industry as a whole, there are about 20 facilities located on the East Coast that might be impacted by the arrival of the Hurricane. Last night, Matt Wald of the New York Times posted the following about how the industry has prepared over at the NY Times Green blog:

Among the various immobile pieces of infrastructure in the path of the East Coast hurricane are around 20 nuclear reactors, from Calvert Cliffs in southern Maryland to Pilgrim in Plymouth, Mass., and Vermont Yankee, just north of the Massachusetts line in Vernon, Vt. But the industry and regulatory officials say that this is an anticipated challenge.

At the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s mid-Atlantic office in King of Prussia, Pa., Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman, said that reactors in the region have undertaken routine preparations. “They all have severe weather procedures,’’ she said. “They’ve gone through their procedures, making sure they have appropriate staff able to be on site, and that anything that’s outside is fastened down.’’

“They’re all designed to withstand the natural phenomena, including hurricanes and what comes with hurricanes — high winds, high water, that kind of thing,’’ she said.

Reactors operate under licenses that require them to shut down if conditions are too severe, and some reactor operators could shut down even before they are required to do so if they choose to, she said. But none had done so by Sunday afternoon. The conditions that would require a shutdown differ from plant to plant and involve factors like wind speed and flooding potential.

For more on how the industry prepares for hurricanes, click here for more information from NEI's website. For a look back at how the industry dealt with Hurricane Irene, click here. In October 2011, NEI's CNO, Tony Pietrangelo, wrote an op-ed for Real Clear Energy on how the industry prepares for extreme events like hurricanes. Finally, I'd also suggest viewing this infographic on how nuclear plants endured a number of extreme events in 2011.

Read More

Nuclear Politics in Missouri

The election this year has focused by and large on the economy and a fair number of important issues have fallen away. They haven’t ceased being important, of course, but politicians follow the interests of the public. One of the issues that has gotten less attention than in previous cycles is energy. In the 2008 contests, the candidates on both sides brought it up at the debates and even nuclear energy got a look (there wasn’t much distance between the candidates – nuclear energy was well supported across the ideological spectrum.)

But this year – not so much in the way of discussion and very little about nuclear energy. So let’s turn instead to what some of the local candidates are talking about.

Over in Missouri, incumbent state Representative Jeanie Riddle (R) and challenger Pam Murray (D) are running in the 20th district, an area that includes the Callaway facility, so nuclear energy is an issue in there.

Surely, there’s some room for disagreement:

Incumbent House Rep. Jeanie Riddle, a Mokane Republican, and Democrat Pam Murray of Holts Summit both support adding another nuclear reactor at the Callaway Energy Center but they disagree on how to do it.

State Rep. Jeanie Riddle

Well, I was expecting more heat, but let’s see what the candidates have in mind. First, Riddle, who supported legislation in support of Callaway last year that passed the House but stalled in the Senate, has developed an interest in attracting small reactor manufacturing to the state:

We want to be the first to do this,” Riddle said, “because it would give us an advantage to becoming a world exporter of this technology. One study shows 8,000 new direct jobs and 8,500 new indirect jobs. It would add $25 billion to Missouri’s economy if our state becomes the lead exporter of these new power plants.”

On her campaign web site, she says, “I want to promote alternative energy sources here and across the nation especially nuclear energy.” 

Pam Murray

Pam Murray is interested in ensuring the Public Service Commission is not left out of the loop in approving new nuclear build.

“More than half of the legislation was devoted to gutting the Missouri Public Service Commission by realigning their budget. It also attempted to limit the amount of regulatory oversight the PSC could apply to telecommunications. It was just a very bad bill,” Murray said.

“It is possible to write a bill that will get the power plant and also protect consumers,” Murray said.

This is the disagreement that writer Don Norfleet is highlighting. I think this is the bill in question, but it doesn’t seem to me overly harsh to the PSC:

An electrical corporation seeking an early site permit from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, upon beginning the permitting process, is required to seek permission from the Missouri Public Service Commission to recover from ratepayers up to $45 million of prudent expenditures on the permit process over a period not to exceed six years.

Murray is all for expansion at Callaway, but is disappointed that bills promoting it have not progressed further.

It is apparent we do not have the representation needed to get this important project completed for our communities! I will work night and day to develop a workable solution to make this a win-win situation for our local governments, our schools, our county and our state!

Exclamation points from original. Riddle and Murray do not seem far apart on the overall issue of nuclear energy in Missouri, but Murray feels she would be a better advocate for Callaway than Riddle. We may assume Riddle thinks the opposite. 

You can see Riddle’s campaign web site here and Murray’s here.

No endorsement here. That’s for Missourians in the 20th district to decide. The doings of nuclear energy are one issue among many they will be considering, some of them, I’m sure, a good deal more important to their daily lives.

Read More

If Nuclear Energy Is Immoral…

Sen. Barnaby Joyce

"If we are fair dinkum about reducing carbon emissions, and we want to have a minimum carbon emission form of power, then uranium is where it's going to be."

And as we know, Australia is fair dinkum, but nuclear energy is not part of the equation. The speaker is Senator Barnaby Joyce, who quite rightly wonders why his country is so eager to export uranium if nuclear energy is so -

"Let's be honest, if you think nuclear energy is immoral, why on earth are you exporting uranium?"

What he’s reacting to is the decision to start mining the (plentiful) uranium in the Queensland province. Apparently, that won’t happen right away.

AUA [Australia Uranium Association] communications director Simon Clarke said uranium was already being sold from existing mines in other states.
"But the estimate of the price that would make it viable to build new mines suggest that the market will be ready for new mine capacity in some time from five to seven years," he said.

The decision to allow it after a years-long ban has aroused a bit of controversy, though from this distance it looks small beans. This comments from Australian Conservation Foundation member Dave Sweeney is about as rough as I could find:

DAVID SWEENEY: The mining sector is a whale, the uranium is a minnow. It produces and contributes about $750-800 million a year to the national coffers, or that's what it generates. It sounds like a lot to an individual. It's not much to a mining sector.

Which sounds like something the mining sector will determine, doesn’t it? Not too rough. Take a look here for some resource maps of Australia’s uranium holdings – Queensland is the big province in the northeast.

But that brings us back to Joyce, who is raring to go on nuclear energy.

Senator Joyce applauded the decision but went further, asking if it was OK to export uranium, then why was it not right to use yellowcake for nuclear power in Australia.

Fair enough.

He said he would welcome a debate on nuclear power in Australia as would many of those in government.
The comments came as federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said yesterday nuclear power was not part of Australia's future.
"The Australian Government has basically said we are committed to all potential forms of clean energy from an innovative point of view, other than nuclear, which is a proven clean energy technology," he said.

Which is true. Australia is very stubborn on this issue, and chatter about starting a discussion has gone on for years. So no need to hope for the formation of the Nuclear Fair Dinkum Commission tomorrow.

Read More

Why The Economics Don't Work for Kewaunee Anymore

NEI VP Richard Myers

Over the past 24 hours, we've seen a number of folks online ask the question of why it's no longer economically feasible for Dominion to continue to operate the Kewaunee Power Station in Wisconsin. Earlier today, I put the question to Richard Myers, NEI's Vice President, Policy Development, Planning and Supplier Programs. Here's what he wrote back:

In 2005, when Dominion bought the plant: (1) power prices in the Midwest were in the $40-50/MWhr range; wellhead gas prices were in the $6-10 per million Btu range; and U.S. electricity demand was growing.

Today: (1) power prices in the Midwest are in the $30/MWhr range: gas prices are in the $2-3 per million Btu range; and (3) the U.S. has had 5 years of no growth in electricity demand, thanks to the worst recession in 80 years.

Thanks to Richard for laying out the numbers for us. For a statement from NEI's Marv Fertel on the decision to close Kewaunee, click here. For a a quote from an RBS research note that defended the decision, click here.

Read More