Palisades springs yet another leak into the control room: Failure of moisture barrier violates agreement with NRC

MI Radio image showing location of chronically leaking SIRWT above Palisades' control roomBeyond Nuclear and Michigan Safe Energy Future--Shoreline Chapter issued a media release on June 6thupon learning of yet another leak into Entergy Nuclear's Palisades atomic reactor control room (see image, left). The leakage has been a recurring problem for over two years now.

Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps stated: “When I raised the SIRWT [Safety Injection Refueling Water Tank] leak into the control room at Entergy’s public open house in South Haven on May 14^th, and on an NRC [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] Webinar May 23^rd, I was told by company and agency spokespeople that that issue was a thing of the past, that an installed moisture barrier had taken care of the problem. But as William Faulkner famously said, ‘The past is never dead. It's not even past.’ If Palisades can’t even prevent basic leakage through the ceiling of the control room, which has now been going on for over two years, what does that say about its reactor and radioactive waste safeguards? Entergy’s use of buckets, tarps, and ineffective sealant against this leak into the safety-critical control room begs the question, is it prepared to prevent large-scale radioactivity releases into the environment from a long list of severely age-degraded, critical safety systems, structures, and components?”

The leak, which was detected on June 3rd, was made known to the public in an NRC document released on June 6th.

Update on June 12, 2013 by admin

Lindsey Smith at Michigan Radio has reported on this story, including the fact that the sand bed region, an integral componet of the SIRWT structure, was never put in place 40 years ago. Blueprints at Palisades were never updated to document this fact. Thus Entergy's and NRC's assumption, that ongoing leaks from the SIRWT even after repairs had been made last summer were coming from the sand bed region, were erroneous and based upon a fantom architectural feature that in fact did not even exist. 

Update on June 13, 2013 by admin

WSJM has also reported on this story:

"A new leak at Palisades has led Entergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the discovery of a design flaw at the nuclear plant. Consumers Energy did not put the water tank, which is now being repaired, on a grout ring as the original blueprints indicated, and the NRC says Palisades and Entergy are working to fix that with new fiberboard and reinforced concrete..."

Entergy is aiming to restart Palisades by late spring/early summer.

Update on June 13, 2013 by admin

Entergy has provided this explanation for the 45-year-old construction error recently discovered at Palisades:

[Entergy] Communications Specialist Lindsay Rose issued a statement, saying, "The discovery of a lack of sandbed refers to Palisades Safety Injection Refueling Water (SIRW) tank, not the control room. We are currently undergoing work in the SIRW tank to replace the tank’s aluminum flooring and sub-flooring. When we removed the pre-existing aluminum floor plates, the condition of the subflooring was not as we had expected. It became apparent that the sand subflooring had not been installed many years ago as we had thought. We have subsequently installed fiberboard subflooring that has asphalt embedded to provide a more robust and reliable system to support the aluminum floor...".

Resistance grows against so-called "small modular reactors"

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) hosted a Webinar on May 30th focused on concerns regarding so-called "small modular reactors," the nuclear power establishment's latest desperation move to try to gouge ratepayers and/or taxpayers. The giant proposed new reactors (1,100 Megawatts-electric to 1,600 MW-e) haven't worked out too well, so the nuclear power industry and its friends in government have decided to try the opposite extreme of the spectrum.

But as Beyond Nuclear board member Kay Drey of St. Louis points out, at 200 to 300 MW-e, these proposed "small modular reactors" are not all that small. The now permanently shutdown and dismantled Big Rock Point atomic reactor in northern MI, for example, was "just" 70 MW-e, yet still unleashed severe radioactive contamination into its surroundings. As another example, Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 -- the first atomic reactor to meltdown and explode after the 3/11/11 earthquake and tsunami in northeast Japan (and evidence has mounted that the earthquake alone plunged Unit 1 into meltdown mode, even before the tsunami hit an hour later) -- was "only" 480 MW-e, by comparison.

The SACE Webinar featured Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research; Autumn Hanna, Senior Program Director at Taxpayers for Common Sense; Tom Clements, Southeast Nuclear Campaign Coordinator with Friends of the Earth; and Sara Barczak, High Risk Energy Choices Program Director with Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. SACE has posted the audio recording, as well as the slide show, for the presentation.

SMRs would be even more expensive, per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, than super-sized reactors. SMRs would be heavily to entirely subsidized by taxpayers and/or ratepayers. SMRs are being targeted at such places as the badly contaminated, former nuclear weapons production complex at Savannah River Site, South Carolina; however, other locations, such as in Missouri, have also been targeted with SMRs.

SMRs would inevitably involve "break-in phase" dangers, from errors in design and construction, to unforeseen "bugs" in the systems, to operator inexperience. And SMRs would leave unresolved nuclear power's half-century old, "insurmountable risks," from disastrous accident potential, to the unsolved radioactive waste problem, to the many downsides of the uranium fuel chain.

The proposed new reactor targeted at Iowa, just canceled by Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Energy, was an SMR (see entry immediately below).

Warren Buffett finally sees the light: MidAmerican Energy cancels proposed new "small modular reactor" targeted at Iowa

As reported by the Des Moines Register, Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Energy has finally pulled the plug on a proposed new "small modular reactor" it was hoping that the ratepayers of Iowa would pay for, through "Construction Work in Progress" (CWIP) surcharges on their electricity bills. A powerful coalition, including AARP, Green State Solutions, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and others can claim credit for this environmental victory against nuclear industry greed, after a protracted three year long battle at the Iowa state legislature.

Update on June 6, 2013 by admin

The International Business Times has also reported on this story, with an article entitled "Warren Buffett Going Green as MidAmerican Opts for Wind Over Nuclear Power in Iowa."

Great Lakes Region Nuclear Hotspots Map

John Jackson of Great Lakes United (GLU) and Anna Tilman of International Institute of Concern for Public Health (IICPH) have released an updated map of Nuclear Hotspots in the Great Lakes Region (see image, left):

"Great Lakes United and the International Institute of Concern for Public Health (IICPH) released today the Great Lakes Nuclear Hot Spots Map, providing a detailed regional, binational view of nuclear facilities in the Great Lakes Region. As the map shows, with the exception of Lake Superior, each of the Great Lakes has numerous nuclear sites related to nuclear power generation, most of which are located within one kilometre of the Lakes. This raises concerns about the cumulative impacts of radioactive releases over the years from so many sites. It also shows the numerous places where a serious nuclear accident could occur in the region.

This map marks the first comprehensive update of this information in 15 years and highlights the lack of information about radioactive releases from these facilities. In 1998, the International Joint Commission’s (IJC) Task Force on Inventory of Radionuclides released an assessment of nuclear facilities around the basin. At the time, the Task Force concluded that releases from nuclear facilities were substantial, but that the extent of knowledge about the releases and their impacts was “limited”.   http://www.ijc.org/files/publications/C131.pdf

The map includes all aspects of nuclear power production in the Great Lakes region, including the 38 operating nuclear power plants, 12 closed plants, and four new plants proposed in Canada. It also includes the facilities that process uranium ore and manufacture the pellets, as well as tailings sites from uranium mining and milling, and facilities that store, and dispose of radioactive waste. Every site on the map is a radioactive waste site, whether operating or not.

The Great Lakes Nuclear Hot Spots Map provides a critical resource for communities concerned about the potential for radioactive waste releases into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Additionally, it shows the sites under consideration by the Canadian Government for storing Canada’s nuclear fuel waste. Most of the proposed sites lie within the Great Lakes basin. With the potential for new disposal sites within easy access of the Great Lakes, communities are concerned that nuclear waste could be brought in via ships, creating substantial risks of spills along Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River shipping lanes and during loading and unloading near shore.

The Citizens’ Clearinghouse on Waste Management contributed funding to this project."

The map updates work from 1990-1991 published by Irene Kock and Dave Martin of Nuclear Awareness Project.

Beyond Nuclear has also compiled a listing of major U.S. municipalities downstream of the proposed Bruce DUD on the Great Lakes shorelines of MI, OH, PA, and NY, as well as a listing of major municipalities in upstate New York directly across Lake Ontario from the nuclear power plants (Pickering, Darlington) and uranium processing facility (Port Hope) east of Toronto.

Environmental coalition rebuts challenges against Fermi 3 proposed new reactor contention

Environmental coalition attorney Terry Lodge of ToledoAttorney Terry Lodge of Toledo (photo, left), and expert witness Arnie Gundersen, Chief Engineer at Fairewinds Associates, Inc, have filed a rebuttal against challenges brought by Detroit Edison and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (NRC) regarding Quality Assurance (QA) contentions in opposition to the proposed new Fermi 3 atomic reactor.

The rebuttal includes expert witness testimony by Gundersen, and an "Intervenor's Rebuttal Statement of Position" legal filing by Lodge.

Lodge and Gundersen filed their rebuttal on behalf of an environmental coalition comprised of Beyond Nuclear, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, and the Sierra Club's Michigan Chapter.

Fermi 3 is a proposed new General Electric-Hitachi so-called "ESBWR" ("Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor"), targeted at the Lake Erie shoreline in Monroe County, Michigan, 8 miles as the crow flies (or the radioactivity blows) from Ontario, Canada.

NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings are set for Halloween on not only this QA contention, but also an Eastern Fox Snake threatened species contention. In addition, Fermi 3's combined Construction and Operation License Application (COLA) cannot be finalized until NRC completes its court-ordered Environmental Impact Statement on its so-called [High-Level] Nuclear Waste Confidence Rule, a proceeding that could take years.