On August 23, 2011, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake erupted beneath the state of Virginia, causing the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant there to tremble with much greater force than its reactors were designed to withstand: Dry casks, each weighing more than 100 metric tons and filled with spent fuel rods, shifted inches. It was the region’s largest quake in more than a century, and the first time such a calamity had struck an American nuclear power station. Just 5 days later, when a category 5 hurricane by the name of Irene struck the East Coast, workers at three other nuclear power plants noticed that emergency sirens had failed to function properly. And at one plant—the Indian Point Power Plant, the one closest to Manhattan—a discharge canal carrying (nonradioactive) water from the cooling system overflowed due to the high river levels.

On September 9 that year NRC staff suggested ordering power plants to review their ability to survive quakes and floods “without unnecessary delay.” Safety procedures that have been implemented include increasing the availability of back-up power sources and ensuring that these power sources are not located in areas that might flood (such as basements). “Expedited” seismic and flooding evaluations were also ordered; modifications will be made if deemed necessary.

446

Because of the Fukushima disaster, the focus has shifted from not merely equipping nuclear facilities to withstand expected natural disasters (storms, earthquakes, floods) but to bolstering the power plants to withstand worst-case scenario events.

With some modifications already in place, an NRC accident analysis released in 2013 concluded that all U.S. reactors are designed to withstand complete loss of power. Indeed, in 2011 and 2012, U.S. reactors withstood power losses and damage inflicted by a record 226 tornadoes that hit the Southeast in a 24-hour period, hurricanes (including Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Sandy), and a magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia. In all cases, the facilities shut down according to safety protocols, without serious incident.

Select References:

García-Pérez, J., et al. (2009). Mortality due to lung, laryngeal and bladder cancer in towns lying in the vicinity of combustion installations. Science of the Total Environment, 407(8): 2593–2602.

Grimes, R. W., & W. J. Nuttall. (2010). Generating the option of a two-stage nuclear renaissance. Science, 329(5993): 799–803.

Harada, K. H., et al. (2014). Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents neighboring restricted areas of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(10): E914–E923.

Nuclear Energy Institute. (2013). “U.S. Government and Nuclear Energy Industry Response to the Fukushima Accident,” www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Backgrounders/White-Papers.

Queißer-Luft, A., et al. (2011). Birth defects in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 50(2): 313–323.

447

448