Yesterday, just over forty years since the first big nuclear accident in a commercial reactor took place on 28 March 1979 at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the other reactors on the island sit were finally closed down. The on-line media coverage from the local Penn Live TV station is re-produced below
On the same day, another US news outlet, USNEWS.com, exclusively revealed the US Nuclear Regulatory commission is significantly reducing gits nuclear security oversight, which is a very worrisome development. Their revelations are reproduced below too.
Three Mile Island nuclear power station is closing today: Will you miss it
when it’s gone? PennLive, Sept 20, 2019
From the Department of Mixed Feelings: The
nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island will be shut down for the last time
Friday, bringing an end to its active life as a power generating station on a
spit of land in the middle of the Susquehanna River.
This may be cause for celebration if you
are one of the survivors of the March 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island Unit Two,
the sister reactor on the island that made “TMI” one of the midstate’s calling
cards. It was the nation’s worst commercial nuclear accident.
Still, the plant’s closure is cause for
mourning for families and friends of the hundreds of Exelon Generation
employees who, over the next few years, will see their jobs eliminated.
And for still others, it’s just a new
chapter in a story that never seems to end.
The Three Mile Island accident, 40 years later:
Stories worth reading
Updated Mar 27, 2019;
Posted Mar 24, 2019
28
Gallery:
Three Mile Island accident and aftermath, in living color
6
This week marks the 40th anniversary of the
accident at Three Mile Island.
The partial meltdown at TMI took place on
March 28, 1979 and it remains the nation’s worst nuclear accident. And it left
an indelible mark on Pennsylvania.
Today, the plant is slated to be shut down,
although lawmakers are working on solutions to keep the plant open.
This month, PennLive and WITF have
collaborated on stories examining the accident’s impact, the efforts to save
TMI and what happens if the plant shuts down. Both news organizations have
produced stories, photo galleries, videos, radio programs and podcasts
exploring this signature event in Pennsylvania’s history.
Look for more stories on PennLive this
week. And Thursday, WITF will air two documentaries looking back at the
accident and the plant’s uncertain future.
If you’ve missed some of the coverage,
here’s a roundup of our stories on TMI, with links to our coverage.
TMI and public health
PennLive and WITF have produced a pair of
stories examining at the lingering questions surrounding TMI and its impact on
public health. Government officials and scientists have long maintained no one
died or was harmed due to the accident. Many who live in central Pennsylvania
reject that conclusion, citing cancers and early deaths of loved ones.
PennLive’s Ivey DeJesus details the long history
of medical studies around TMI and the suspicions of illnesses and
deaths that endure four decades later.
WITF’s Brett Sholtis looked at the 2017
Penn State study pointing to a correlation
between TMI and a certain type of thyroid cancer, a study that only
stoked fuel to the ongoing debate.
Saving Three Mile Island?
Lawmakers and lobbyists are working
feverishly to keep Three Mile Island open. Some say the plant is a key
component of the region’s economy and Pennsylvania’s energy portfolio. Critics
say they don’t want what they see as a bailout at the expense of consumers.
PennLive’s Charles Thompson details the effort to
preserve TMI.
In a separate story, Charles examines if
the Keystone State energy market
and environment can do without Three Mile Island.
The question of nuclear waste
If Three Mile Island shuts down, what
happens to the plant’s nuclear waste? PennLive’s Wallace McKelvey examines the plant’s
plans to deal with the nuclear waste.
If TMI closes, then what?
WITF’s Ed Mahon examined the impact of TMI’s
closure on the businesses and lives of communities surrounding the
plant.
A PennLive story explores another
consequence if TMI closes: the plant’s
surrounding counties could lose financial aid for emergency planning.
Some also say those emergency planning efforts should continue even if the
plant shuts down.
What would a TMI evacuation look like
today?
When the accident occurred in 1979, more
than 144,000 people in central Pennsylvania hit the road. If there was a need
for a mass evacuation today, it would be very challenging, since the region’s
population has surged over the past four decades. This PennLive piece looks at the daunting
challenges of an evacuation.
The environmental debate
Some view nuclear energy as an undeniable
threat to the environment. Others view nuclear energy as a key component in
strategies to combat climate change. Ivey DeJesus looks at the thorny issue of the
environmental debate concerning nuclear energy.
TMI and pop culture
The TMI accident inspired a song that
became a hit on radio stations throughout the Harrisburg area in 1979. PennLive
spoke with members of the band Maxwell who created “Radiation
Funk,” a song fondly remembered to this day.
WITF’s Lisa Wardle looked at how Three Mile
Island influenced popular culture, from a board game to a memorable
sketch on “Saturday Night Live.”
How Hollywood foreshadowed TMI
Less than two weeks before the accident,
“The China Syndrome” opened in movie theaters and delivered the chilling
scenario of a nuclear emergency. A PennLive piece recalls the eerie timing
of the Hollywood blockbuster.
They covered the TMI accident
A few of The Patriot-News reporters who
covered the accident recalled their experiences.
John Troutman
shared his stories of covering one of the most staggering events in the
commonwealth’s history as a very young reporter. Roger Quigley
explains what it felt like when all hell broke loose. Bill Blando
relayed the confusion and chaos at the time.
PennLive/Patriot-News columnist Nancy Eshelman
shared how the TMI accident unfolded amidst unimaginable terror in her personal
life.
TMI and public health
PennLive and WITF have produced a pair of
stories examining at the lingering questions surrounding TMI and its impact on
public health. Government officials and scientists have long maintained no one
died or was harmed due to the accident. Many who live in central Pennsylvania
reject that conclusion, citing cancers and early deaths of loved ones.
PennLive’s Ivey DeJesus details the long history
of medical studies around TMI and the suspicions of illnesses and
deaths that endure four decades later.
WITF’s Brett Sholtis looked at the 2017
Penn State study pointing to a correlation
between TMI and a certain type of thyroid cancer, a study that only
stoked fuel to the ongoing debate.
Saving Three Mile Island?
Lawmakers and lobbyists are working
feverishly to keep Three Mile Island open. Some say the plant is a key
component of the region’s economy and Pennsylvania’s energy portfolio. Critics
say they don’t want what they see as a bailout at the expense of consumers.
PennLive’s Charles Thompson details the effort to
preserve TMI.
In a separate story, Charles examines if
the Keystone State energy market
and environment can do without Three Mile Island.
The question of nuclear waste
If Three Mile Island shuts down, what
happens to the plant’s nuclear waste? PennLive’s Wallace McKelvey examines the plant’s
plans to deal with the nuclear waste.
If TMI closes, then what?
WITF’s Ed Mahon examined the impact of TMI’s
closure on the businesses and lives of communities surrounding the
plant.
A PennLive story explores another
consequence if TMI closes: the plant’s
surrounding counties could lose financial aid for emergency planning.
Some also say those emergency planning efforts should continue even if the
plant shuts down.
What would a TMI evacuation look like
today?
When the accident occurred in 1979, more
than 144,000 people in central Pennsylvania hit the road. If there was a need
for a mass evacuation today, it would be very challenging, since the region’s
population has surged over the past four decades. This PennLive piece looks at the daunting
challenges of an evacuation.
The environmental debate
Some view nuclear energy as an undeniable
threat to the environment. Others view nuclear energy as a key component in
strategies to combat climate change. Ivey DeJesus looks at the thorny issue of the
environmental debate concerning nuclear energy
A Meltdown in
Nuclear Security
A commando raid
on a nuclear power plant seems the stuff of Hollywood. So why are nuclear
security experts so worried?
By Alan Neuhauser Staff Writer
Sept. 20, 2019
It ranks among the worst-case scenarios for a nuclear power plant: an all-out assault or stealth infiltration by well-trained, heavily armed attackers bent on triggering a nuclear blast, sparking a nuclear meltdown or stealing radioactive material.
For nearly two decades, the nation's nuclear power plants have been required by federal law to prepare for such a nightmare: At every commercial nuclear plant, every three years, security guards take on a simulated attack by hired commandos in so-called "force-on-force" drills. And every year, at least one U.S. nuclear plant flunks the simulation, the "attackers" damaging a reactor core and potentially triggering a fake Chernobyl – a failure rate of 5 percent.
In spite of that track record, public documents and testimony show that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the nation's fleet of commercial nuclear reactors, is now steadily rolling back the standards meant to prevent the doomsday scenario the drills are designed to simulate.
Under pressure from a cash-strapped nuclear energy industry increasingly eager to slash costs, the commission in a little-noticed vote in October 2018 halved the number of force-on-force exercises conducted at each plant every cycle. Four months later, it announced it would overhaul how the exercises are evaluated to ensure that no plant would ever receive more than the mildest rebuke from regulators – even when the commandos set off a simulated nuclear disaster that, if real, would render vast swaths of the U.S. uninhabitable.
Later this year, the NRC is expected to greenlight a proposal that will allow nuclear plants – which currently must be able to fend off an attack alone – to instead begin depending on local and state law enforcement, whose training, equipment and response times may leave them ill-prepared to respond to a military-grade assault.
The moves have inflamed open dissent within the commission, which has been riven in recent years by internecine conflict between Republican and Democratic commissioners.
"I
know how easy it is to cause a Fukushima-scale meltdown ... You can't afford to
be wrong once."
"The NRC staff argues that this approach 'would increase the efficiency of the FOF inspection program,'"' Commissioner Jeff Baran, an Obama administration appointee, wrote in an agency document in October. "NRC would really just be doing less."
The commissioners in the NRC's majority, as well as senior staff members and the nuclear power industry's main trade group, maintain that the changes reflect the improved state of security at the nation's fleet of commercial nuclear plants – and, to some degree, amount to a long-overdue correction to security excesses prompted by the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The force-on-force exercises, they contend, are merely one facet of a rigorous security regime.
"It's just
one out of 10 security inspections that we do, and it's the totality of those
inspections that we do that have us verifying that licensees are operating
their plants in a secure way," says Marissa Bailey, director of the
Division of Security Operations at the NRC.
Nuclear
security experts, consultants, law enforcement veterans and former NRC
commissioners – several of whom spoke with U.S. News on condition of anonymity
in order to address the issue candidly – are nothing short of alarmed. They
openly question whether top regulators at the NRC, ceaselessly lobbied by an
industry strapped for cash, have fallen prey to valuing quarterly earnings,
lucrative contracts and potential plum job opportunities over day-to-day
security.
A longtime
nuclear security expert minced no words about the potential consequences:
"I know
how easy it is to cause a Fukushima-scale meltdown, radiation release or worse.
And the timelines are very short. You don't have much room to maneuver if you
misjudge what the threat is," says Ed Lyman, senior scientist in the
global security program and acting director of the nuclear safety project at
the Union of Concerned Scientists. "You can't afford to be wrong
once."
'No One Likes Security'
Force-on-force
exercises, a mix of live-action role playing and military-grade laser tag, are
not unique to the nuclear sector – they're used to test military bases, and police departments engage in
a version of them in active-shooter drills. For obvious reasons, they remain
cloaked in secrecy.
Some details
about the nuclear drills, though, are publicly available: The attacking force
is expected to deploy a range of tactics, from disabling alarm systems to using
automatic weapons and silencers, attacking one or multiple entry points,
employing land and water vehicles, and using "incapacitating agents"
and explosives. The types of attacks are explicitly outlined in NRC regulations.
"It's a
big, big thing that these folks have to go through under the microscope every
three years," says Justin Corey, a longtime nuclear security consultant
whose work has included advising plants on training and defense measures and
who has participated in force-on-force exercises as an adversary.
No comments:
Post a Comment