Resources & Stats
Safety and Security
Opinion Leader Responses to Events at Fukushima Daiichi Plant
President Barack Obama
“Here at home, nuclear power is also an important part of our own energy future, along with renewable sources like wind, solar, natural gas and clean coal. Our nuclear power plants have undergone exhaustive study, and have been declared safe for any number of extreme contingencies. But when we see a crisis like the one in Japan, we have a responsibility to learn from this event, and to draw from those lessons to ensure the safety and security of our people. That’s why I’ve asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do a comprehensive review of the safety of our domestic nuclear plants in light of the natural disaster that unfolded in Japan.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV
“I believe we have to have a time-out here with the situation in Japan. I don't think there should be a mad rush to say nuclear power generation is bad. I think we need a time out to take a look at it and let's have the experts tell us some things that could have been done better. I think the main issue is, let's just not be rambunctious. Let's take our time.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY
“This discussion reminds me, somewhat, of the conversations that were going on after the BP oil spill last year. I don’t think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy.”
Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY (Chairman, Senate Democratic Policy Committee; Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; Vice-Chairman, Joint Economic Committee)
“I’m still willing to look at nuclear. As I’ve said, it has to be done safely and carefully.”
Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-NM
I would not be surprised if we decide to have a hearing to review the implications of what happened there for our own nuclear power generation capacity. My own view is that we need to have a diverse set of sources for energy production and nuclear power is currently responsible for 20 percent of our electricity generation. I think nuclear power can be provided in a safe reliable way and it is possible that we will learn some things from what’s happened in Japan that will persuade us to put in place additional precautions.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-AK (Ranking Member, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee)
Some have compared the event to Chernobyl and declared the nuclear power renaissance dead. But that comparison is incorrect and the prediction premature. I believe nuclear power will continue to be a viable energy source in this country for decades to come. What the situation in Japan does provide is an opportunity to learn from their experiences to make our operations even safer.
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
I have a lot of faith in the nuclear industry, and I feel safe living five miles away from a nuclear power plant. I know people at the plant. They're very dedicated, hardworking people. Nuclear power is going to be essential if America is to grow. We could not replace that power easily. Politically, I believe it will be possible to build new reactors. Let’s move forward, and only stop when it makes sense. The nuclear power industry needs to do a better job than the oil and gas industry did. They need to get ahead of this. I want to make sure the lessons we learn from Japan are logical.
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK (Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
There's been a pause for 15 years now. I think it's time to continue on," Inhofe urged. "I think most people, the majority here, agree we're going to have to have nuclear power... . Right now we have some applications going – I think 32 in process. I think we should continue with those, along with the newest reactor.
Senator Carl Levin, D-MI
Well, I think there ought to be a period here where all of our nuclear plants are tested very, very carefully to make sure that they are safe, and to make sure that this cannot happen here. But I don't think that we can say that we're not going to continue to use nuclear power. Europe depends heavily on it, and they have found it to be safe. We use it a lot. We have found it, since Three Mile Island, to be safe. And it seems to me that the great hope that we have, ultimately, in terms of greenhouse gas is to move away from fossil fuels. And although I think we have to be mighty careful about nuclear power, we should put a lot of effort into seeing what we can do with the waste, that we cannot give up on that possibility because of the climate change which is occurring from fossil fuels.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I-New York, NY
Short term, we have to have power if we are going to grow, and Indian Point at the moment is a big part of that. All of these other alternatives are a number of years down the road.
House Assistant Democratic Leader James E. Clyburn, D-SC
I have absolute confidence in the rigorous inspection and licensing regime in place at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I remain convinced that a clean energy future will not be possible without an investment in a diverse set of energy sources, including a renewed commitment to nuclear energy.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX (House Energy and Commerce Committee)
Our safety systems in the United States are much more robust than in Japan. If there's ever an earthquake, I want to be in the control room at Comanche Peak . . . It can withstand the largest earthquake we could have and then some.
Representative Chris Gibson, R-NY
In light of Japan, let's make sure we study it very closely to understand what happened there. I would think all communities would be interested in knowing all the facts. Going forward, education is going to be very important here. Any licensing decision must be based on facts. I believe that nuclear energy is something that should be part of our future. Indeed, it should be part of a comprehensive energy policy for the entire Capital Region.
Governor Gary Herbert, R-UT
The practical reality is that going forward the demand will increase, and the equation doesn't work without nuclear.
Governor Robert McDonnell, R-VA
Virginia is home to two nuclear facilities, in Surry and Louisa counties. They generate roughly 40 percent of our electricity. They have multiple redundant systems to provide backup electrical power. The stations were also analyzed against worst-case acts of nature, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes, and modified as necessary to protect them. There are 19 emergency drills scheduled for this year.
We must use all our God-given resources here in America to pursue our goal of greater energy security. Nuclear energy is an important part of our energy portfolio.
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
If a reactor is located in the vicinity of site – it's forbidden to put a reactor on an earthquake fault, but if they're located in the vicinity of the site, then there is an estimate of what the largest ground motion would be at that site. And then you design above that ground motion criteria. The ground motion criteria we use is something where the probability is so low we're looking for a potential quake that would occur once every 7,000 to 10,000 years. And so you're allowing a huge span of time to allow for significant ground motion.
Safety remains at the forefront of our effort to responsibly develop America’s energy resources, and we will continue to incorporate best practices and lessons learned into that process.
To meet our energy needs, the Administration believes we must rely on a diverse set of energy sources including renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power. We look forward to a continued dialogue with Congress on moving that agenda forward.
Nuclear energy also has an important role to play in our energy portfolio. The budget requests up to $36 billion in loan guarantee authority to help deploy a new generation of American nuclear reactors. It also invests in the research and development of advanced nuclear technologies.
To support the President’s goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world in four years, the budget invests $2.5 billion in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program.
The United States faces a choice: will we out-compete the rest of the world or will we fall behind? To lead the world in clean energy, we must act now. We can’t afford not to.
White House press briefing, March 17, 2011 (excerpts, answers only)
Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Poneman
[F]rom the aspect of policy, safety has always been our paramount concern, and we will continue to strive to make sure that all of our energy sources keep that first and foremost. And so we continue to rely on the independence of the NRC and its ability to make those judgment calls as to whether it is operating safely enough. But we will not rest from our perspective at all, because we’ll continue to take every data we can into account and continue to improve the safety of our nuclear power and any other energy source that we are advancing.
NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko
I want to emphasize and stress that we have a very robust program where we look at the safety and the security of our nuclear facilities on a minute-by-minute basis. And this certainly will be new information that when we have good, credible information about what happened in Japan, we’ll take that information and we’ll work to see what changes we might need to make, if any, to our system.
Well, all the plants in the United States are designed to deal with a wide range of natural disasters, whether it’s earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, other seismic events. We require all of them to deal with those … . We look at historically what are the largest kinds of events that we’ve seen happen, and we then add a little bit of something extra to that just because we know we don’t know everything. And from that we design the plants to be able to withstand that kind of activity.
Now, as I said, over the years we’ve gone a little bit beyond that as well, because we know that sometimes there are limitations in our knowledge. So we’ve looked at what we call severe accidents, which are these kinds of very catastrophic situations, and the plants over the years have made modifications that deal with these very catastrophic types of events.
And finally, following September 11th, the agency ordered all the nuclear power plants in this country to basically pre-stage equipment and materials and have procedures in place to deal with a situation very similar to what we have in Japan, where you have a catastrophic loss of power in a very catastrophic situation at the nuclear power plant. So we’ve inspected [to check] that all the plants have those procedures and they have that equipment in place. So we think that there’s a very robust program in this country to deal with those things.
Well, all the nuclear power plants in this country are designed to deal with seismic events. We tend to think about it at the NRC not in terms of what’s near a fault line but in terms of the different types of seismic activity. So, in fact, every plant in the United States is designed to deal with whatever seismic activity is likely for that.
Well, certainly with the plants in California … they are designed to a very robust seismic standard, and for the ones that are on the coast they’re also designed to deal with a very significant tsunami. And in fact, after the 2004 tsunami, we took a look at the programs we have in place to deal with the tsunamis, much as I expect we’ll do here with the situation from Japan.
White House press briefing, March 14, 2011 (excerpts, answers only)
NRC Chairman Jaczko
Right now we continue to believe that nuclear power plants in this country operate safely and securely.
With regard to the U.S. power plants, the U.S. power plants are designed to very high standards for earthquake effects. All our plants are designed to withstand significant natural phenomena like earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis. So we believe we have a very solid and strong regulatory infrastructure in place right now. But of course, as we always do, as an independent regulatory agency, we will continue to take new information and see if there are changes that we need to make with our program.
But bottom line right now … we believe that the plants in this country continue to be designed to a very high standard for seismic and tsunami-type events.
Again, as an independent regulatory agency, we will always take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the safety and security of nuclear power plants in this country. But right now we believe we have a very strong program in place.
As we get more information from Japan, as this immediate crisis ultimately comes to an end, we will look at whatever information we can gain from this event and see if there are changes we need to make to our system.
I would just add as a similar scenario, following the 2004 tsunami, we did review tsunami requirements for nuclear power plants, and, in fact, went and made sure that our plants would be able do deal with that type of event.
At this point what I can say is we have a strong safety program in place to deal with seismic events that are likely to happen at any nuclear facility in this country. As we get past this immediate crisis where we continue to provide support to the Japanese, we’ll gather information about the specifics of the event. But I don’t want to speculate too much about what exactly were the relevant factors in Japan at this point.
Question: Do you gentlemen worry about perhaps an overreaction in this country, seeing a nuclear problem in another country, in terms of policymakers running away from nuclear energy?
Deputy Energy Secretary Poneman
[W]e have to have an energy policy and a direction in this country that’s driven by our overall assessment of our country’s best interest.
Each event as it occurs is taken into account, but we don’t sort of change from day to day our overall approach to the desire to diversify our overall energy posture.
Nuclear power has been a critical component to the U.S. energy portfolio. We have 104 operating reactors – that’s 20 percent of the electricity of this country; 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity in this country comes from nuclear power. So we do see nuclear power as continuing to play an important role in building a low-carbon future. But be assured that we will take the safety aspect of that as our paramount concern.
We view nuclear energy as a very important component to the overall portfolio we’re trying to build for a clean energy future.
As I said, going back decades, every experience that we have with respect to our nuclear plants we take fully into account. Certainly back in March 1979 at the time of the Three Mile Island episode, there were a tremendous amount of learnings that we applied to the improvement of safety in our fleet. Our reactors are much safer today because of all those learnings that have been applied.
We continually hypothesize new scenarios of different types and never stop our efforts to continue to exercise our capabilities, to assess the possibilities, and to ensure that our reactors can operate as safely as possible. We’ll continue to do that. We’ll continue to seek to improve. We’ll certainly take the learnings out of this experience and apply those as well …
From a policy perspective, we will continue to operate our reactors and seek to operate them safely. We will continue to seek to build nuclear into a part of a responsible energy future, and we will repose our confidence in the NRC to make sure that we only do so to the extent that it can be done safely.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
I would just add that we have the plants that we have already in operation that provide 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. And information is still coming in from Japan, so as we evaluate that information, these gentlemen have made clear that they will incorporate that into how we view safety and security of nuclear energy as a resource.
But it remains a part of the President’s overall energy plan when he talks about reaching a clean energy standard, [nuclear energy is] a vital part of that. And as we get more information about Japan and what happened there, that can be incorporated. But right now, we remain committed to the clean energy standard and the other aspects of the President’s energy plan.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) salutes the crews at Tokyo Electric Power’s Fukushima Daiichi facility who are risking their lives to contain the damage to the reactors caused by the once-in-a-millennium catastrophe that has befallen Japan.
We believe that the courage and determination shown by the TEPCO workers reflect the high standards of service and professionalism to which the American nuclear work force adheres. We take pride in working in close coordination with utility management and government agencies to ensure that the United States nuclear facilities remain a prime source of safe, reliable electricity for millions of customers.
We believe that situation in Japan must be kept in perspective. Safety procedures, including disaster scenario simulations, are part and parcel of the training and preparation that nuclear plants undertake on a regular basis. Our facilities have emergency backup systems to cope with the potential loss of both primary and secondary power sources.
The tragedy in Japan does not equate to the nuclear industry in America and attempts to draw correlations between the two constitute a disservice to the public and to the reasoned consideration of energy policy for the future. We continue to believe that nuclear power must play a key role as American tackles the energy and environmental issues of the 21st century.
The IBEW represents 725,000 workers in North America, including 15,000 at 42 nuclear facilities.
Washington Post editorial: “Too Soon to Write Off Nuclear Power”
Events in Japan will affect the “nuclear renaissance” to some extent, no matter what Mr. Chu or anyone else says, and all the more if the damage is not contained. Our thoughts, as ever, are with the Japanese people struggling to cope; beyond that, it is too soon to form broad and absolute judgments on relative risks.
Wall Street Journal editorial: Nuclear Overreactions: Modern life requires learning from disasters, not fleeing all risk”
We will have plenty of time to dissect events at the reactors and the safety lessons going forward.
[M]ore than other energy sources, nuclear plants have had their costs increased by artificial political obstacles and delay.
Our larger point is less about nuclear power than how we react as a society to inevitable disasters, both natural and man-made. Because a plane crashes, we don't stop flying. Because an oil rig explodes in the Gulf, we don't (or at least we shouldn't) stop drilling for oil. And because the Challenger space shuttle blew up, we didn't stop shuttle flights — though we do seem to have lost much of our national will for further manned space exploration. We should learn from the Japanese nuclear crisis, not let it feed a political panic over nuclear power in general.
Modern civilization is in the daily business of measuring and mitigating risk, but its advance requires that we continue to take risk. It would compound Japan's tragedy if the lesson America learns is that we should pursue the illusory and counterproductive goal of eliminating all risk.
Miami Herald editorial: Nuclear power’s future – OUR OPINION: Crisis in Japan should not deter development of safe nuclear energy
In Florida, FPL is seeking the go-ahead to build two new reactors at Turkey Point. Progress Energy wants to build a new plant in Levy County. The state already has three operating plants (Crystal River, St. Lucie and Turkey Point) housing five reactors. Without new generating facilities, Florida could fail to meet its growing energy needs.
Based on existing technology, nuclear power has a critical role to play in devising a climate solution. It’s a form of clean energy. Other clean sources such as solar and wind power — as desirable as these are — require significant new levels of investment and a hefty commitment of public funding before they can match the output of other large-scale generators of energy. Meanwhile, the explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia and the Deepwater Horizon blowout offer a fresh reminder of the perils of coal and oil.
The terrible events in Japan are a warning about the need to plan for a nightmare scenario. Better engineering, appropriate placement (not on or near a fault line) and more back-up safety systems can reduce, but never eliminate, the risks and unanticipated vulnerability of nuclear plants.
But as horrifying as this episode is, it should not deter this country from developing nuclear power. Let’s learn from Japan’s experience and make the operation of existing and future plants as safe as possible.
LaCrosse Tribune editorial (LaCrosse, WI): Our view: Nuclear power still a viable option
Obviously the environmental impacts of nuclear disasters are far-reaching and need to be taken seriously. We learned from Three Mile Island, and we can learn from this disaster as well.
Nothing we can do will prevent all accidents. Gas pipelines will explode. Oil wells will leak. Coal mines will collapse.
Unless we’re prepared to rely exclusively on wind and solar energy, there’s no such thing as a foolproof, 100 percent guaranteed safe form of energy.
The News and Advance editorial (Lynchburg, VA): Nuclear Power and America
But the dramatic stories coming out of Japan on an hourly basis are no reason for the public or politicians to panic over the general safety and efficacy of nuclear power.
The public needs to calm down; the environmentalists need to quit trying to make political hay of a grave crisis; the politicians simply need to grow a spine.
Modern society is increasingly power-hungry. That power needs to come from clean, renewable sources. And right now, there is no cleaner, safer, more renewable source of power than nuclear.
That’s as true today — in the middle of this crisis — as it was March 10, the day before the quake hit.
Chicago Tribune editorial: Revive Yucca
In the short term, America's nuclear industry can reduce risks by moving more spent fuel from reactor buildings into dry casks — sturdy concrete and steel containers nearly the size of a truck trailer — elsewhere on site.
In the long run, however, nuclear waste shouldn't be scattered near population centers across the country. It should be entombed in Yucca Mountain.
USA Today editorial: Nuclear, oil, gas or coal? Pick your energy poison
The reality is, the United States doesn't have the option to walk away from nuclear power, which supplies almost 9% of the nation's energy and about 20% of its electricity. The industry has posted such a strong safety record in the 32 years since the accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island that many environmentalists have embraced the idea of building new plants — which offer huge amounts of 24/7 power with virtually no carbon emissions.
Denver Post editorial: Nuclear still an option, but it must wait
We consider nuclear power one of the options needed as the U.S. strives for energy independence.
Oshkosh Northwestern editorial (Oshkosh, WI): U.S. must adopt long-term policy on energy needs
To be fair, completely swearing off nuclear power in wake of the disaster in Japan may be a short-sighted reaction. But the public and policymakers need to have an honest, comprehensive discussion about the risks, drawbacks and other options before opening reactors that will operate for decades.
Conversations about one type of energy source versus another can't be made in a vacuum, and throwing energy into the polarized political fray won't serve anyone's best interests, especially the public who signs the check to pay the power bill.
The final thought: Japan's crisis may seem like a likely end to the discussion about the expansion of nuclear power in the U.S., but it instead should inspire an open dialogue about our long-term energy needs and goals.
Knoxville News Sentinel editorial: U.S. nuclear safety review a prudent step
Nuclear power is essential to the future energy needs of the country. Safety is essential to the future well-being of area residents. The Obama administration has a responsibility to review and, where necessary, improve the safety of the nuclear power plants in our midst.
Greensboro News & Record editorial (Greensboro, NC)
But over-reacting now could jeopardize steady progress the nation has made toward reducing unhealthy air pollution linked to dated coal-fired power plants. Environmentalists blame thousands of deaths on emissions from their smokestacks. The timing couldn’t be worse for the Obama administration, which seeks congressional funding for a low-emission nuclear system to replace the dominant coal-stoked facilities.
Perspective is important. Pacific Rim countries and the U.S. West Coast are more vulnerable to major earthquakes and tsunamis than are plants in the heartland or East.
One size simply doesn’t fit all. Unnecessary and costly regulations applying to all plants could stunt justifiable nuclear growth. Even so, in light of the catastrophe in Japan, a reassessment of overall plant safety is in order.
Only by that path would there be the knowledge, confidence and public buy-in necessary to go forward with nuclear energy.
Racine Journal Times editorial (Racine, WI): Nuclear power should stay in fold
Chernobyl showed us the risk of nuclear power, but we can cite risks associated with other sources of energy. People report physical stress from living near wind turbines. Arguments against coal received a wide airing here during the multiyear debate over expansion of the Oak Creek Power Plant. Coal produces pollutants that wind up in air, water and people to the detriment of all. Burning coal also requires excavating entire mountains with the associated environmental damage.
Wisconsin does not have a major seismic fault lying just off its coast, and Lake Michigan will not rear up and throw a tsunami at us. U.S. reactors are not of the fussy Chernobyl design, and we have learned from Chernobyl. Aside from evacuations and telling people to stay indoors, Japanese officials are passing out iodine pills in the hope of displacing any radioactive iodine in people's bodies.
Wind turbines don't turn when the wind stops; solar panels don't produce power at night; oil has topped $100 a barrel. We need other sources of energy to keep our world turning, and nuclear should remain part of our future.
Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter editorial: Keep nuclear part of energy future
In this case, however, we put more stock in the past than in what might happen in a future impossible to predict. The Point Beach and Kewaunee facilities have, for the most part, had clean safety records since going online in the 1970s. There have been occasional glitches, but they were thoroughly examined by the NRC and corrective measures were taken. None of the instances rose to the level of seriously compromising public safety. We can be thankful that current and previous management of the local nuclear facilities has been, if not always stellar, at least proficient to the point of keeping the plants operating safely and efficiently.
That says a lot in an industry coming under increasing fire from those who believe the U.S. nuclear footprint should be much smaller, if not eliminated altogether.
More to the point in the president's recent remarks is this: "Nuclear energy is an important part of our own energy future."
That bodes well for an industry in the midst of battles over plant decommissioning, new and costly rules, and environmental regulations.
We hope that nuclear power, with ongoing and thorough oversight, will continue to be part of the nation's energy landscape for many years to come.
Greenville News editorial (Greenville, SC): Don't derail U.S. nuclear plants
A review of American nuclear reactors is appropriate in the wake of Japan’s earthquake and ensuing nuclear disaster, but the United States should avoid a rush to judgment on the safety of domestic nuclear power plants and shouldn’t let the accident derail plans for new nuclear reactors here.
There have been murmurs that the disaster in Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami there should halt any new nuclear development in the United States. Such a leap in logic ignores the safety record of nuclear plants in the United States and the extraordinary disaster that was the root cause of Japan’s crisis.
South Carolina is dependent on nuclear power not only for the energy it produces but also for the high-paying jobs of those who work at and support the state’s nuclear reactors. To write off those facilities or to put on hold plans to build next-generation reactors because of the situation in Japan would be short-sighted.
Duke Energy is planning to build two new reactors in Cherokee County by 2022. SCANA also is proposing two new reactors in South Carolina.
It has been encouraging in the days since the earthquake in Japan to hear President Barack Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stress that nuclear energy still is and should be a viable part of America’s energy portfolio.
For its part, the NRC is planning a 90-day study of the significance of the Japanese disaster to American reactors, according to The New York Times. That’s necessary, because even more than a week after Japan’s earthquake and tsunami, it’s unclear exactly how severe the nuclear accident was or why it happened.
NRC members also suggested that any application of lessons from Japan would be “systematic and methodical.” That’s the appropriate language to use. There’s no need to implement changes that may not be necessary.
Sen. Lindsey Graham also joined the chorus of voices stressing that the situation in Japan is unlike anything has happened in the United States and it should not push the United States to delay an expansion in nuclear energy.
“What’s going on in Japan is heartbreaking,” Graham said, according to a recent report in The Greenville News. But, he added, “I feel it would be ill-advised to stop building new nuclear power plants.”
The U.S. nuclear power industry has a good safety record that spans decades and includes just one major accident, at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
Furthermore, the new generation of nuclear plants is being designed to withstand catastrophic disasters like earthquakes or airplane crashes and will be even safer. Certainly the tragedy in Japan could lead to refinements that make the next-generation plants even more able to withstand the worst of disasters.
Any discussion about the safety of nuclear power in the United States also needs to include a detailed debate about what to do with the waste that’s piling up outside U.S. reactors.
There needs to be a viable long-term solution for nuclear waste. Too much nuclear waste in the United States is stored on site at the nation’s nuclear power plants, and waste stored at those sites is more vulnerable to disaster or accident than waste stored underground.
The best solution for the United States’ nuclear waste already has been approved. That is Yucca Mountain in Nevada where spent nuclear fuel could be stored far beneath the ground where it would be safe from accident, disaster or terrorism. The federal government has collected billions of dollars from utility rate-payers to pay for Yucca Mountain. This promise to store spent nuclear fuel in the safest possible way needs to be kept.
The nuclear tragedy unfolding in Japan is worth analyzing to determine if changes need to be made in the United States. But it would be unwise to rush to condemn nuclear power as unsafe given its relatively good track record here, its importance in the United States’ energy portfolio, and its reliability in producing vast amounts of electricity without pollution.
Natchez Democrat editorial: You can't be too safe with nuclear energy
When the current crisis has passed, we hope our nation — and the world — considers bolstering the already stringent nuclear regulations to help avoid another crisis in the future. By all accounts, our world needs the potent energy creating aspects of nuclear power, but we need to continue our excellent record of safety.
Dallas Morning News editorial: Japan’s crisis strengthens our resolve for safe nuclear energy
Americans must learn from this tragedy in our own necessary pursuit of nuclear power as part of a broader plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Nearly all of the 104 reactors in this country are on coastlines and near earthquake faults, and, similar to Japan’s, they utilize backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries. A confluence of several catastrophic events here could be just as calamitous as what is unfolding half a world away.
Here’s where careful and thoughtful assessment is needed. The BP oil disaster last year required a rethinking of safety procedures and regulations. Likewise, Japan’s struggle with potentially uncontrollable reactors should prompt global reviews of safety procedures. Japanese authorities must be completely clear with the IAEA about the extent of the crisis.
This disaster must not become fodder for nuclear energy opponents to shut down reactors, nor should it allow proponents to blindly insist that this could never happen in the United States.
A more reasonable position is to expend our national brain power to make sure that federal and state procedures to deal with nuclear emergencies are in place and that the companies responsible for the first line of safety don’t cut corners.
This wasn’t the case in the Gulf Coast oil spill; BP and its contractors took shortcuts, and regulators didn’t regulate correctly. The result was environmental and economic catastrophes from Florida to Louisiana. The consequences of a worst-case nuclear mishap are exponentially greater.
America’s reaction to the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 stalled U.S. nuclear plant construction for three decades and left this nation more dependent on fossil fuels, including foreign oil, and less energy-secure.
As our nation helps Japan rise again, we also must learn from that nation’s terrifying experience and make nuclear energy as safe as possible.
“Here at home, nuclear power is also an important part of our own energy future, along with renewable sources like wind, solar, natural gas and clean coal. Our nuclear power plants have undergone exhaustive study, and have been declared safe for any number of extreme contingencies. But when we see a crisis like the one in Japan, we have a responsibility to learn from this event, and to draw from those lessons to ensure the safety and security of our people. That’s why I’ve asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do a comprehensive review of the safety of our domestic nuclear plants in light of the natural disaster that unfolded in Japan.”
- March 17, 2011, The White House
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV
“I believe we have to have a time-out here with the situation in Japan. I don't think there should be a mad rush to say nuclear power generation is bad. I think we need a time out to take a look at it and let's have the experts tell us some things that could have been done better. I think the main issue is, let's just not be rambunctious. Let's take our time.”
- March 15, 2011, Congressional Quarterly
http://www.congress.org/news/2011/03/16/nuclear_safety_under_question
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY
“This discussion reminds me, somewhat, of the conversations that were going on after the BP oil spill last year. I don’t think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy.”
- March 13, 2011
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/13/mcconnell-defends-nuclear-power-amid-japan-fears/?mod=google_news_blog
Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY (Chairman, Senate Democratic Policy Committee; Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; Vice-Chairman, Joint Economic Committee)
“I’m still willing to look at nuclear. As I’ve said, it has to be done safely and carefully.”
- March 13, 2011
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/13/mcconnell-defends-nuclear-power-amid-japan-fears/?mod=google_news_blog
Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-NM
I would not be surprised if we decide to have a hearing to review the implications of what happened there for our own nuclear power generation capacity. My own view is that we need to have a diverse set of sources for energy production and nuclear power is currently responsible for 20 percent of our electricity generation. I think nuclear power can be provided in a safe reliable way and it is possible that we will learn some things from what’s happened in Japan that will persuade us to put in place additional precautions.
- March 15, 2011, Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources press release
Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-AK (Ranking Member, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee)
Some have compared the event to Chernobyl and declared the nuclear power renaissance dead. But that comparison is incorrect and the prediction premature. I believe nuclear power will continue to be a viable energy source in this country for decades to come. What the situation in Japan does provide is an opportunity to learn from their experiences to make our operations even safer.
- March 18, 2011, op-ed at CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/18/murkowski.japan.nuclear/index.html
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
I have a lot of faith in the nuclear industry, and I feel safe living five miles away from a nuclear power plant. I know people at the plant. They're very dedicated, hardworking people. Nuclear power is going to be essential if America is to grow. We could not replace that power easily. Politically, I believe it will be possible to build new reactors. Let’s move forward, and only stop when it makes sense. The nuclear power industry needs to do a better job than the oil and gas industry did. They need to get ahead of this. I want to make sure the lessons we learn from Japan are logical.
- March 17, 2011, press conference
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M15S7G1.htm
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/17/110624/graham-us-nuclear-regulations.html
http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/38769-graham-urges-confidence-in-new-nuclear-reactors
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK (Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
There's been a pause for 15 years now. I think it's time to continue on," Inhofe urged. "I think most people, the majority here, agree we're going to have to have nuclear power... . Right now we have some applications going – I think 32 in process. I think we should continue with those, along with the newest reactor.
- March 15, 2011, press conference
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/15/senate-leaders-warn-against-rush-judgment-nuclear-power
Senator Carl Levin, D-MI
Well, I think there ought to be a period here where all of our nuclear plants are tested very, very carefully to make sure that they are safe, and to make sure that this cannot happen here. But I don't think that we can say that we're not going to continue to use nuclear power. Europe depends heavily on it, and they have found it to be safe. We use it a lot. We have found it, since Three Mile Island, to be safe. And it seems to me that the great hope that we have, ultimately, in terms of greenhouse gas is to move away from fossil fuels. And although I think we have to be mighty careful about nuclear power, we should put a lot of effort into seeing what we can do with the waste, that we cannot give up on that possibility because of the climate change which is occurring from fossil fuels.
- March 20, 2011, Meet the Press, NBC
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I-New York, NY
Short term, we have to have power if we are going to grow, and Indian Point at the moment is a big part of that. All of these other alternatives are a number of years down the road.
- March 18, 2011
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/mar/18/bloomberg-backs-indian-point-nuclear-plant/
House Assistant Democratic Leader James E. Clyburn, D-SC
I have absolute confidence in the rigorous inspection and licensing regime in place at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I remain convinced that a clean energy future will not be possible without an investment in a diverse set of energy sources, including a renewed commitment to nuclear energy.
- March 17, 2011, press conference
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/17/110624/graham-us-nuclear-regulations.html
Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX (House Energy and Commerce Committee)
Our safety systems in the United States are much more robust than in Japan. If there's ever an earthquake, I want to be in the control room at Comanche Peak . . . It can withstand the largest earthquake we could have and then some.
- March 24, 2011
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/03/23/2945208/barton-pleased-with-safety-measures.html
Representative Chris Gibson, R-NY
In light of Japan, let's make sure we study it very closely to understand what happened there. I would think all communities would be interested in knowing all the facts. Going forward, education is going to be very important here. Any licensing decision must be based on facts. I believe that nuclear energy is something that should be part of our future. Indeed, it should be part of a comprehensive energy policy for the entire Capital Region.
- March 23, 2011
http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/523664/Gibson-says-nuclear-energy-is-still-viable-option.html
Governor Gary Herbert, R-UT
The practical reality is that going forward the demand will increase, and the equation doesn't work without nuclear.
- March 18, 2011, press conference announcing Utah’s Ten-Year Strategic Energy Plan
http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-utah-energy-plan-to-include-nuclear-power-20110318,0,3038826.story
Governor Robert McDonnell, R-VA
Virginia is home to two nuclear facilities, in Surry and Louisa counties. They generate roughly 40 percent of our electricity. They have multiple redundant systems to provide backup electrical power. The stations were also analyzed against worst-case acts of nature, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes, and modified as necessary to protect them. There are 19 emergency drills scheduled for this year.
We must use all our God-given resources here in America to pursue our goal of greater energy security. Nuclear energy is an important part of our energy portfolio.
- March 18, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-japans-disaster-will-nuclear-energy-have-a-future-in-america/2011/03/18/ABngjKs_story.html
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
If a reactor is located in the vicinity of site – it's forbidden to put a reactor on an earthquake fault, but if they're located in the vicinity of the site, then there is an estimate of what the largest ground motion would be at that site. And then you design above that ground motion criteria. The ground motion criteria we use is something where the probability is so low we're looking for a potential quake that would occur once every 7,000 to 10,000 years. And so you're allowing a huge span of time to allow for significant ground motion.
- March 20, 2011, State of the Union, CNNThe American people should have full confidence that the United States has rigorous safety regulations in place to ensure that our nuclear power is generated safely and responsibly. Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in Japan, but the Administration is committed to learning from Japan’s experience as we work to continue to strengthen America’s nuclear industry.
Safety remains at the forefront of our effort to responsibly develop America’s energy resources, and we will continue to incorporate best practices and lessons learned into that process.
To meet our energy needs, the Administration believes we must rely on a diverse set of energy sources including renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power. We look forward to a continued dialogue with Congress on moving that agenda forward.
Nuclear energy also has an important role to play in our energy portfolio. The budget requests up to $36 billion in loan guarantee authority to help deploy a new generation of American nuclear reactors. It also invests in the research and development of advanced nuclear technologies.
To support the President’s goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world in four years, the budget invests $2.5 billion in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program.
The United States faces a choice: will we out-compete the rest of the world or will we fall behind? To lead the world in clean energy, we must act now. We can’t afford not to.
- March 15, 2011, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the House Committee on Appropriations
White House press briefing, March 17, 2011 (excerpts, answers only)
Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Poneman
[F]rom the aspect of policy, safety has always been our paramount concern, and we will continue to strive to make sure that all of our energy sources keep that first and foremost. And so we continue to rely on the independence of the NRC and its ability to make those judgment calls as to whether it is operating safely enough. But we will not rest from our perspective at all, because we’ll continue to take every data we can into account and continue to improve the safety of our nuclear power and any other energy source that we are advancing.
NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko
I want to emphasize and stress that we have a very robust program where we look at the safety and the security of our nuclear facilities on a minute-by-minute basis. And this certainly will be new information that when we have good, credible information about what happened in Japan, we’ll take that information and we’ll work to see what changes we might need to make, if any, to our system.
Well, all the plants in the United States are designed to deal with a wide range of natural disasters, whether it’s earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, other seismic events. We require all of them to deal with those … . We look at historically what are the largest kinds of events that we’ve seen happen, and we then add a little bit of something extra to that just because we know we don’t know everything. And from that we design the plants to be able to withstand that kind of activity.
Now, as I said, over the years we’ve gone a little bit beyond that as well, because we know that sometimes there are limitations in our knowledge. So we’ve looked at what we call severe accidents, which are these kinds of very catastrophic situations, and the plants over the years have made modifications that deal with these very catastrophic types of events.
And finally, following September 11th, the agency ordered all the nuclear power plants in this country to basically pre-stage equipment and materials and have procedures in place to deal with a situation very similar to what we have in Japan, where you have a catastrophic loss of power in a very catastrophic situation at the nuclear power plant. So we’ve inspected [to check] that all the plants have those procedures and they have that equipment in place. So we think that there’s a very robust program in this country to deal with those things.
Well, all the nuclear power plants in this country are designed to deal with seismic events. We tend to think about it at the NRC not in terms of what’s near a fault line but in terms of the different types of seismic activity. So, in fact, every plant in the United States is designed to deal with whatever seismic activity is likely for that.
Well, certainly with the plants in California … they are designed to a very robust seismic standard, and for the ones that are on the coast they’re also designed to deal with a very significant tsunami. And in fact, after the 2004 tsunami, we took a look at the programs we have in place to deal with the tsunamis, much as I expect we’ll do here with the situation from Japan.
White House press briefing, March 14, 2011 (excerpts, answers only)
NRC Chairman Jaczko
Right now we continue to believe that nuclear power plants in this country operate safely and securely.
With regard to the U.S. power plants, the U.S. power plants are designed to very high standards for earthquake effects. All our plants are designed to withstand significant natural phenomena like earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis. So we believe we have a very solid and strong regulatory infrastructure in place right now. But of course, as we always do, as an independent regulatory agency, we will continue to take new information and see if there are changes that we need to make with our program.
But bottom line right now … we believe that the plants in this country continue to be designed to a very high standard for seismic and tsunami-type events.
Again, as an independent regulatory agency, we will always take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the safety and security of nuclear power plants in this country. But right now we believe we have a very strong program in place.
As we get more information from Japan, as this immediate crisis ultimately comes to an end, we will look at whatever information we can gain from this event and see if there are changes we need to make to our system.
I would just add as a similar scenario, following the 2004 tsunami, we did review tsunami requirements for nuclear power plants, and, in fact, went and made sure that our plants would be able do deal with that type of event.
At this point what I can say is we have a strong safety program in place to deal with seismic events that are likely to happen at any nuclear facility in this country. As we get past this immediate crisis where we continue to provide support to the Japanese, we’ll gather information about the specifics of the event. But I don’t want to speculate too much about what exactly were the relevant factors in Japan at this point.
Question: Do you gentlemen worry about perhaps an overreaction in this country, seeing a nuclear problem in another country, in terms of policymakers running away from nuclear energy?
Deputy Energy Secretary Poneman
[W]e have to have an energy policy and a direction in this country that’s driven by our overall assessment of our country’s best interest.
Each event as it occurs is taken into account, but we don’t sort of change from day to day our overall approach to the desire to diversify our overall energy posture.
Nuclear power has been a critical component to the U.S. energy portfolio. We have 104 operating reactors – that’s 20 percent of the electricity of this country; 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity in this country comes from nuclear power. So we do see nuclear power as continuing to play an important role in building a low-carbon future. But be assured that we will take the safety aspect of that as our paramount concern.
We view nuclear energy as a very important component to the overall portfolio we’re trying to build for a clean energy future.
As I said, going back decades, every experience that we have with respect to our nuclear plants we take fully into account. Certainly back in March 1979 at the time of the Three Mile Island episode, there were a tremendous amount of learnings that we applied to the improvement of safety in our fleet. Our reactors are much safer today because of all those learnings that have been applied.
We continually hypothesize new scenarios of different types and never stop our efforts to continue to exercise our capabilities, to assess the possibilities, and to ensure that our reactors can operate as safely as possible. We’ll continue to do that. We’ll continue to seek to improve. We’ll certainly take the learnings out of this experience and apply those as well …
From a policy perspective, we will continue to operate our reactors and seek to operate them safely. We will continue to seek to build nuclear into a part of a responsible energy future, and we will repose our confidence in the NRC to make sure that we only do so to the extent that it can be done safely.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
I would just add that we have the plants that we have already in operation that provide 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. And information is still coming in from Japan, so as we evaluate that information, these gentlemen have made clear that they will incorporate that into how we view safety and security of nuclear energy as a resource.
But it remains a part of the President’s overall energy plan when he talks about reaching a clean energy standard, [nuclear energy is] a vital part of that. And as we get more information about Japan and what happened there, that can be incorporated. But right now, we remain committed to the clean energy standard and the other aspects of the President’s energy plan.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) salutes the crews at Tokyo Electric Power’s Fukushima Daiichi facility who are risking their lives to contain the damage to the reactors caused by the once-in-a-millennium catastrophe that has befallen Japan.
We believe that the courage and determination shown by the TEPCO workers reflect the high standards of service and professionalism to which the American nuclear work force adheres. We take pride in working in close coordination with utility management and government agencies to ensure that the United States nuclear facilities remain a prime source of safe, reliable electricity for millions of customers.
We believe that situation in Japan must be kept in perspective. Safety procedures, including disaster scenario simulations, are part and parcel of the training and preparation that nuclear plants undertake on a regular basis. Our facilities have emergency backup systems to cope with the potential loss of both primary and secondary power sources.
The tragedy in Japan does not equate to the nuclear industry in America and attempts to draw correlations between the two constitute a disservice to the public and to the reasoned consideration of energy policy for the future. We continue to believe that nuclear power must play a key role as American tackles the energy and environmental issues of the 21st century.
The IBEW represents 725,000 workers in North America, including 15,000 at 42 nuclear facilities.
- March 18, 2011 statement
http://www.ibew.org/articles/11daily/1103/110318_JapanStmt.htm
Washington Post editorial: “Too Soon to Write Off Nuclear Power”
Events in Japan will affect the “nuclear renaissance” to some extent, no matter what Mr. Chu or anyone else says, and all the more if the damage is not contained. Our thoughts, as ever, are with the Japanese people struggling to cope; beyond that, it is too soon to form broad and absolute judgments on relative risks.
- March 16, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/too-soon-to-write-off-nuclear-power/2011/03/16/ABZ64Eh_story.html
Wall Street Journal editorial: Nuclear Overreactions: Modern life requires learning from disasters, not fleeing all risk”
We will have plenty of time to dissect events at the reactors and the safety lessons going forward.
[M]ore than other energy sources, nuclear plants have had their costs increased by artificial political obstacles and delay.
Our larger point is less about nuclear power than how we react as a society to inevitable disasters, both natural and man-made. Because a plane crashes, we don't stop flying. Because an oil rig explodes in the Gulf, we don't (or at least we shouldn't) stop drilling for oil. And because the Challenger space shuttle blew up, we didn't stop shuttle flights — though we do seem to have lost much of our national will for further manned space exploration. We should learn from the Japanese nuclear crisis, not let it feed a political panic over nuclear power in general.
Modern civilization is in the daily business of measuring and mitigating risk, but its advance requires that we continue to take risk. It would compound Japan's tragedy if the lesson America learns is that we should pursue the illusory and counterproductive goal of eliminating all risk.
- March 14, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576198723013907008.html
Miami Herald editorial: Nuclear power’s future – OUR OPINION: Crisis in Japan should not deter development of safe nuclear energy
In Florida, FPL is seeking the go-ahead to build two new reactors at Turkey Point. Progress Energy wants to build a new plant in Levy County. The state already has three operating plants (Crystal River, St. Lucie and Turkey Point) housing five reactors. Without new generating facilities, Florida could fail to meet its growing energy needs.
Based on existing technology, nuclear power has a critical role to play in devising a climate solution. It’s a form of clean energy. Other clean sources such as solar and wind power — as desirable as these are — require significant new levels of investment and a hefty commitment of public funding before they can match the output of other large-scale generators of energy. Meanwhile, the explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia and the Deepwater Horizon blowout offer a fresh reminder of the perils of coal and oil.
The terrible events in Japan are a warning about the need to plan for a nightmare scenario. Better engineering, appropriate placement (not on or near a fault line) and more back-up safety systems can reduce, but never eliminate, the risks and unanticipated vulnerability of nuclear plants.
But as horrifying as this episode is, it should not deter this country from developing nuclear power. Let’s learn from Japan’s experience and make the operation of existing and future plants as safe as possible.
- March 17, 2011
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/17/2120560/nuclear-powers-future.html
LaCrosse Tribune editorial (LaCrosse, WI): Our view: Nuclear power still a viable option
Obviously the environmental impacts of nuclear disasters are far-reaching and need to be taken seriously. We learned from Three Mile Island, and we can learn from this disaster as well.
Nothing we can do will prevent all accidents. Gas pipelines will explode. Oil wells will leak. Coal mines will collapse.
Unless we’re prepared to rely exclusively on wind and solar energy, there’s no such thing as a foolproof, 100 percent guaranteed safe form of energy.
- March 18, 2011
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_4442cede-510c-11e0-8244-001cc4c002e0.html
The News and Advance editorial (Lynchburg, VA): Nuclear Power and America
But the dramatic stories coming out of Japan on an hourly basis are no reason for the public or politicians to panic over the general safety and efficacy of nuclear power.
The public needs to calm down; the environmentalists need to quit trying to make political hay of a grave crisis; the politicians simply need to grow a spine.
Modern society is increasingly power-hungry. That power needs to come from clean, renewable sources. And right now, there is no cleaner, safer, more renewable source of power than nuclear.
That’s as true today — in the middle of this crisis — as it was March 10, the day before the quake hit.
- March 18, 2011
http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2011/mar/18/nuclear-power-and-america-ar-912859/
Chicago Tribune editorial: Revive Yucca
In the short term, America's nuclear industry can reduce risks by moving more spent fuel from reactor buildings into dry casks — sturdy concrete and steel containers nearly the size of a truck trailer — elsewhere on site.
In the long run, however, nuclear waste shouldn't be scattered near population centers across the country. It should be entombed in Yucca Mountain.
- March 19, 2011
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-yucca-20110319,0,4049532.story
USA Today editorial: Nuclear, oil, gas or coal? Pick your energy poison
The reality is, the United States doesn't have the option to walk away from nuclear power, which supplies almost 9% of the nation's energy and about 20% of its electricity. The industry has posted such a strong safety record in the 32 years since the accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island that many environmentalists have embraced the idea of building new plants — which offer huge amounts of 24/7 power with virtually no carbon emissions.
- March 16, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-03-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm
Denver Post editorial: Nuclear still an option, but it must wait
We consider nuclear power one of the options needed as the U.S. strives for energy independence.
- March 19, 2011
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17646982
Oshkosh Northwestern editorial (Oshkosh, WI): U.S. must adopt long-term policy on energy needs
To be fair, completely swearing off nuclear power in wake of the disaster in Japan may be a short-sighted reaction. But the public and policymakers need to have an honest, comprehensive discussion about the risks, drawbacks and other options before opening reactors that will operate for decades.
Conversations about one type of energy source versus another can't be made in a vacuum, and throwing energy into the polarized political fray won't serve anyone's best interests, especially the public who signs the check to pay the power bill.
The final thought: Japan's crisis may seem like a likely end to the discussion about the expansion of nuclear power in the U.S., but it instead should inspire an open dialogue about our long-term energy needs and goals.
- March 15, 2011
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110316/OSH0602/103160575/1190/Editorial-U-S-must-adopt-long-term-policy-energy-needs
Knoxville News Sentinel editorial: U.S. nuclear safety review a prudent step
Nuclear power is essential to the future energy needs of the country. Safety is essential to the future well-being of area residents. The Obama administration has a responsibility to review and, where necessary, improve the safety of the nuclear power plants in our midst.
- March 20, 2011
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/mar/20/us-nuclear-safety-review-a-prudent-step/
Greensboro News & Record editorial (Greensboro, NC)
But over-reacting now could jeopardize steady progress the nation has made toward reducing unhealthy air pollution linked to dated coal-fired power plants. Environmentalists blame thousands of deaths on emissions from their smokestacks. The timing couldn’t be worse for the Obama administration, which seeks congressional funding for a low-emission nuclear system to replace the dominant coal-stoked facilities.
Perspective is important. Pacific Rim countries and the U.S. West Coast are more vulnerable to major earthquakes and tsunamis than are plants in the heartland or East.
One size simply doesn’t fit all. Unnecessary and costly regulations applying to all plants could stunt justifiable nuclear growth. Even so, in light of the catastrophe in Japan, a reassessment of overall plant safety is in order.
Only by that path would there be the knowledge, confidence and public buy-in necessary to go forward with nuclear energy.
- March 17, 2011
http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/03/16/article/editorial_japan_meltdown_will_be_felt_here
Racine Journal Times editorial (Racine, WI): Nuclear power should stay in fold
Chernobyl showed us the risk of nuclear power, but we can cite risks associated with other sources of energy. People report physical stress from living near wind turbines. Arguments against coal received a wide airing here during the multiyear debate over expansion of the Oak Creek Power Plant. Coal produces pollutants that wind up in air, water and people to the detriment of all. Burning coal also requires excavating entire mountains with the associated environmental damage.
Wisconsin does not have a major seismic fault lying just off its coast, and Lake Michigan will not rear up and throw a tsunami at us. U.S. reactors are not of the fussy Chernobyl design, and we have learned from Chernobyl. Aside from evacuations and telling people to stay indoors, Japanese officials are passing out iodine pills in the hope of displacing any radioactive iodine in people's bodies.
Wind turbines don't turn when the wind stops; solar panels don't produce power at night; oil has topped $100 a barrel. We need other sources of energy to keep our world turning, and nuclear should remain part of our future.
- March 20, 2011
http://www.journaltimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_d682a56c-5288-11e0-951c-001cc4c002e0.html
Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter editorial: Keep nuclear part of energy future
In this case, however, we put more stock in the past than in what might happen in a future impossible to predict. The Point Beach and Kewaunee facilities have, for the most part, had clean safety records since going online in the 1970s. There have been occasional glitches, but they were thoroughly examined by the NRC and corrective measures were taken. None of the instances rose to the level of seriously compromising public safety. We can be thankful that current and previous management of the local nuclear facilities has been, if not always stellar, at least proficient to the point of keeping the plants operating safely and efficiently.
That says a lot in an industry coming under increasing fire from those who believe the U.S. nuclear footprint should be much smaller, if not eliminated altogether.
More to the point in the president's recent remarks is this: "Nuclear energy is an important part of our own energy future."
That bodes well for an industry in the midst of battles over plant decommissioning, new and costly rules, and environmental regulations.
We hope that nuclear power, with ongoing and thorough oversight, will continue to be part of the nation's energy landscape for many years to come.
- March 20, 2011
http://www.htrnews.com/article/20110320/MAN0601/103200470/Editorial-Keep-nuclear-part-energy-future
Greenville News editorial (Greenville, SC): Don't derail U.S. nuclear plants
A review of American nuclear reactors is appropriate in the wake of Japan’s earthquake and ensuing nuclear disaster, but the United States should avoid a rush to judgment on the safety of domestic nuclear power plants and shouldn’t let the accident derail plans for new nuclear reactors here.
There have been murmurs that the disaster in Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami there should halt any new nuclear development in the United States. Such a leap in logic ignores the safety record of nuclear plants in the United States and the extraordinary disaster that was the root cause of Japan’s crisis.
South Carolina is dependent on nuclear power not only for the energy it produces but also for the high-paying jobs of those who work at and support the state’s nuclear reactors. To write off those facilities or to put on hold plans to build next-generation reactors because of the situation in Japan would be short-sighted.
Duke Energy is planning to build two new reactors in Cherokee County by 2022. SCANA also is proposing two new reactors in South Carolina.
It has been encouraging in the days since the earthquake in Japan to hear President Barack Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stress that nuclear energy still is and should be a viable part of America’s energy portfolio.
For its part, the NRC is planning a 90-day study of the significance of the Japanese disaster to American reactors, according to The New York Times. That’s necessary, because even more than a week after Japan’s earthquake and tsunami, it’s unclear exactly how severe the nuclear accident was or why it happened.
NRC members also suggested that any application of lessons from Japan would be “systematic and methodical.” That’s the appropriate language to use. There’s no need to implement changes that may not be necessary.
Sen. Lindsey Graham also joined the chorus of voices stressing that the situation in Japan is unlike anything has happened in the United States and it should not push the United States to delay an expansion in nuclear energy.
“What’s going on in Japan is heartbreaking,” Graham said, according to a recent report in The Greenville News. But, he added, “I feel it would be ill-advised to stop building new nuclear power plants.”
The U.S. nuclear power industry has a good safety record that spans decades and includes just one major accident, at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
Furthermore, the new generation of nuclear plants is being designed to withstand catastrophic disasters like earthquakes or airplane crashes and will be even safer. Certainly the tragedy in Japan could lead to refinements that make the next-generation plants even more able to withstand the worst of disasters.
Any discussion about the safety of nuclear power in the United States also needs to include a detailed debate about what to do with the waste that’s piling up outside U.S. reactors.
There needs to be a viable long-term solution for nuclear waste. Too much nuclear waste in the United States is stored on site at the nation’s nuclear power plants, and waste stored at those sites is more vulnerable to disaster or accident than waste stored underground.
The best solution for the United States’ nuclear waste already has been approved. That is Yucca Mountain in Nevada where spent nuclear fuel could be stored far beneath the ground where it would be safe from accident, disaster or terrorism. The federal government has collected billions of dollars from utility rate-payers to pay for Yucca Mountain. This promise to store spent nuclear fuel in the safest possible way needs to be kept.
The nuclear tragedy unfolding in Japan is worth analyzing to determine if changes need to be made in the United States. But it would be unwise to rush to condemn nuclear power as unsafe given its relatively good track record here, its importance in the United States’ energy portfolio, and its reliability in producing vast amounts of electricity without pollution.
- March 23, 2011
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20110323/OPINION/303230018/Don-t-write-off-nuclear-plants
Natchez Democrat editorial: You can't be too safe with nuclear energy
When the current crisis has passed, we hope our nation — and the world — considers bolstering the already stringent nuclear regulations to help avoid another crisis in the future. By all accounts, our world needs the potent energy creating aspects of nuclear power, but we need to continue our excellent record of safety.
- March 22, 2011
http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/news/2011/mar/22/you-cant-be-too-safe-nuclear-energy/
Dallas Morning News editorial: Japan’s crisis strengthens our resolve for safe nuclear energy
Americans must learn from this tragedy in our own necessary pursuit of nuclear power as part of a broader plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Nearly all of the 104 reactors in this country are on coastlines and near earthquake faults, and, similar to Japan’s, they utilize backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries. A confluence of several catastrophic events here could be just as calamitous as what is unfolding half a world away.
Here’s where careful and thoughtful assessment is needed. The BP oil disaster last year required a rethinking of safety procedures and regulations. Likewise, Japan’s struggle with potentially uncontrollable reactors should prompt global reviews of safety procedures. Japanese authorities must be completely clear with the IAEA about the extent of the crisis.
This disaster must not become fodder for nuclear energy opponents to shut down reactors, nor should it allow proponents to blindly insist that this could never happen in the United States.
A more reasonable position is to expend our national brain power to make sure that federal and state procedures to deal with nuclear emergencies are in place and that the companies responsible for the first line of safety don’t cut corners.
This wasn’t the case in the Gulf Coast oil spill; BP and its contractors took shortcuts, and regulators didn’t regulate correctly. The result was environmental and economic catastrophes from Florida to Louisiana. The consequences of a worst-case nuclear mishap are exponentially greater.
America’s reaction to the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 stalled U.S. nuclear plant construction for three decades and left this nation more dependent on fossil fuels, including foreign oil, and less energy-secure.
As our nation helps Japan rise again, we also must learn from that nation’s terrifying experience and make nuclear energy as safe as possible.
- March 14, 2011
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20110314-editorial-japans-crisis-strengthens-our-resolve-for-safe-nuclear-energy.ece
Download this File
219 KB
