Methane Gas Levels in the Gulf Continue to Raise Coastal Nuke Concerns

“Astonishingly high” levels of methane gas from the BP oil spill are entrained in a submerged plume in the water of the Gulf of Mexico with renewed concern according to a breaking story by an Alabama TV news station.  The discovery has raised more questions about the safety of coastal nuclear power plant operations as a result of the oil catastrophe.  One water sample amounting to about two cups of water taken from along a boom line resulted in a small explosion in a testing laboratory flask possibly as the result of a chemical reaction with high methane levels and/or volatile oil dispersants. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not yet responded to a June 14, 2010 inquiry from Beyond Nuclear and two other safe energy organizations regarding potential risks to coastal nuclear power plant operations as a result of the oil spill, submerged contamination and entrained explosive gases. The focus remains on Florida’s Gulf Coast Crystal River nuclear power station which shut down for extensive repairs before the Deepwater Horizon spill. During full power operation the nuclear power plant will take in approximately one billion gallons of Gulf water each day for the reactor coolant system. In light of the extensive contamination in the Gulf, the NRC must make public its safety analysis for reactor operations before Crystal River is allowed to restart in September 2010.  

PSR blasts Congressional proposal to rollback NRC safety regulations

In an op-ed published in The Hill newspaper, Physicians for Social Responsibility's board president, Dr. Jeff Patterson, has compared legislative attempts -- as in the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act discussion draft -- to rollback Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety and licensning regulations for new atomic reactors to the same kinds of mistakes -- speed over safety -- that led to the BP Gulf of Mexico oil catastrophe.

Is the AP1000 rust prone and at risk of catastrophic radioactivity releases? Arnie Gundersen says yes!

Image compliments of Arnold Gundersen, Fairewinds Associates, Inc.See the story in the New York Times Green blog. And see Arnie's power point on the subject at the Fairewinds Associates, Inc. website. This fatal design flaw on the most "popular" (among nuclear utilities anyway!)new reactor design in the U.S. -- with 14 on order, all targeted at the Southeast -- raises serious safety concerns about the nuclear power relapse, and the tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer-backed federal loan guarantees proposed to pay for it. Also see the April 21, 2010 press conference and related background documents that first raised the red flag on this issue. And see the Oct. 2009 NRC press release admitting another major design flaw with the AP1000, a structurally unsound shield building vulnerable to earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes. If the AP1000 is "the best" new reactor design out there, awarded $8.3 billion in loan guarantees by President Obama last February and in line to potentially recieve a whole lot more, we'd hate to see the runners up!

Huge, rich overseas firms and foreign workers would supply new US reactors

Nuclear Information and Resource Service has published a report documenting that every single new reactor proposal in the US would be designed by either Japanese (Toshiba, Hitachi, Mitsubishi) or French (Areva) reactor vendors. Large nuclear components, such as reactor pressure vessels, would also be supplied by foreign firms, primarily Japan Steel Works. And some of the nuclear utilities proposing new reactors in the US are themselves partially owned by foreign firms. This means that federal loan guarantees for new reactors and uranium enrichment facilities would benefit foreign companies and workers, at US taxpayer risk and expense. The Christian Science Monitor reported this story.

US atomic reactor capacity factor less than 76% on average

The US atomic power industry would like the public to believe that its capacity factor -- comparing actual generation to theoretical rated capacity -- is very high. In fact, in recent years, operating nuclear power plants in the US have operated at an above 90% capacity factor -- attained by taking short cuts on safety, due to NRC regulatory rollbacks, "burning" nuclear fuel to higher "burn up" (that is, leaving nuclear fuel in reactor cores longer, thus increasing the irradiated nuclear fuel's thermal output and radioactivity levels), and performing needed maintenance during operations, rather than during re-fueling outages. However, the FOE/Earth Track analysis by Doug Koplow on tax breaks for new reactors in the Kerry-Lieberman "American Power Act" reports that: "The historical weighted average capacity factor for the U.S. nuclear fleet through 2008 was less than 76%, according to data compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2009)." Thus vendors' claims that their new reactors (such as the AP1000 and the EPR) will have a 93% capacity factor is very dubious. The nuclear power industry tries to downplay the potential for solar and wind power by saying "The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow." But reactors don't always operate either. Dave Lochbaum at UCS has reported on over 50 safety related shutdowns at US nuclear power plants that have lasted for longer than a year. And with the worsening climate crisis and the resulting extreme weather conditions, reactors will likely be forced to shut down more and more often as a safety precaution.