May 17, 2012

After Decades, Preventable Fire Hazards Persist at Alabama Nuclear Reactor

Browns Ferry nuclear plant, historic catalyst for tougher fire rules, is itself still troubled with fire hazards

Thirty-six years after federal overseers of safety at nuclear plants first recognized the serious risks of fires – when a candle ignited a major emergency at the Browns Ferry nuclear plantpreventable fire hazards still persist at the nation’s reactors, including Browns Ferry.

On Tuesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was back at the site of the nation’s worst reactor fire, in 1975, this time to issue a rare “red” safety violation – considered a matter of “high safety significance.” A valve critical for reactor cooling in the event of a fire or other accident had failed.

The valve may have been inoperable for more than two years.

It wasn’t the first such problem at the reactor, though penalties are almost always lighter. A number of fire safety violations have been issued over the years.

One example, in 2003: The plants operators relied on an employee to trip critical pumps during a fire, even though that would require the worker to endure intense heat, heavy smoke and other hazardous conditions.

Another, in April 2010: Failure to protect critical cables from fire damage.

On Wednesday, the nonprofit news organizations iWatch News and ProPublica, in rare separate investigations, reached similar conclusions about the NRC’s seeming inability to effectively safeguard nuclear plants against fires, which have been occurring for many years at the nation’s 104 nuclear plants at a rate of nearly 10 times annually.

Both organizations cited numerous examples of regulatory breakdowns, and ProPublica focused on Browns Ferry, where the plant still doesn’t comply with requirements to protect cables.

Nationally, half the accidents that threaten reactor cores begin with fires that can start from something as simple as a spark or short in a cable.

At Browns Ferry, the fire began with a candle, which ignited a seal that happened to be highly flammable.  As a result of that fire, nuclear regulators realized fires posed significant hazards at reactors and in 1980 put in place regulations designed to protect the equipment needed to safely shut down a reactor in a fire.

As both investigations concluded, since those rules went into effect nuclear utilities have been granted hundreds of exemptions and nuclear regulators have allowed countless safety issues to go unresolved.

Although the nuclear industry and NRC repeatedly stress that there has been no fire as serious as Browns Ferry, critics argue a major fire is only a matter of time – and a more likely risk.

Countless smaller fires have occurred, with some coming close to endangering the reactor core.

“The agency takes full credit for the grace of God,” George Mulley, who authored several critical reports about lax fire enforcement while chief investigator at the NRC’s office of Inspector General, told ProPublica.

As iWatch News reported in its investigation, both regulators and the industry have routinely downplayed the risks of fire.

“The phrase `it can’t happen here’ has been a harbinger of trouble in the nuclear industry,” Peter Bradford, an NRC commissioner during the Three Mile Island accident who now teaches about nuclear power and public policy at Vermont Law School, told iWatch News. “Specific accidents don’t repeat themselves. Failures of reactor owners and regulators to anticipate and defend against remote but not impossible contingencies do.”

The risks posed by fires have been heightened since the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi facility in March. That issue was raised again Tuesday when NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko toured the Indian Point nuclear plant on the Hudson River 35 miles north of Manhattan.

Critics of the plant, which is applying to have its operating license extended for another 20 years, have argued that it is vulnerable to earthquakes, is an attractive target for terrorists – and that it fails to meet many fire standards set by the NRC.  iWatch News also reported on a little-known threat at Indian Point: the presence of two half-century old natural gas lines located 600 feet from the reactor containment building.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, in a petition to the NRC asking for a review of all public safety threats posed by the plant prior to relicensing, noted that Indian Point has been granted over 100 exemptions to fire safety rules.

Indian Point, said Jaczko during his visit, meets “very stringent safety and security requirements.”

At the conclusion of his tour, Jazcko was asked about the presence of the natural gas lines. Safety critics have noted that the owner of Indian Point, Entergy Corp., and the NRC have routinely dismissed the threat a fire or explosion at the gas line would pose to the safety of the reactor.

Jazcko said he was aware of the gas lines, and a review by the NRC is underway.

“If there’s a safety issue there, we’ll take the appropriate action,” he said.

A 1975 fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Alabama was a turning point: regulators recognized the potentially serious safety threat to the reactor core. Yet fires still routinely occur - at a pace of nearly 10 a year. NRC Photo

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Susan Q. Stranahan, was a member of The Philadelphia Inquirer team awarded a 1980 Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the Three Mile Island accident. For 28 years, she was a reporter primarily covering environmental issues at The Inquirer. She taught environmental writing at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote a book, “Susquehanna River of Dreams,” and is now a freelance writer based in Maine. She can be reached at susan (dot) stranahan (at) gmail.com

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.