This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Gov. Gary Herbert could not have known when he called on fellow Utahns for "substantive debate and deliberation" on atomic energy, that the world's biggest nuclear crisis in decades would soon unfold.
Then, weeks later, a March 11 earthquake and massive tsunami unraveled emergency plans at four reactors in northern Japan. The meltdown watch in the weeks that followed, the mass evacuations, the radiation scares and the reports of contaminated food and water — none of it could have been predicted. Nor could anyone foresee estimates for a cleanup lasting three decades and costing more than $14 billion.
Now, 10 months after Herbert mentioned nuclear power in his State of the State address and eight months since the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power station began, the Fukushima Effect still reverberates around the world.
The nuclear industry and government regulators have proposed fixes to reactor designs and operations. A former state legislator's plans for Utah's first commercial nuclear power plant are expected to include lessons learned from Japan.
While it appears that many people have regained their confidence in nuclear energy, others see the event as damning proof that it can never be safe enough.
For Herbert, who believes that nuclear power is "absolutely necessary to meet the demands of world energy," the accident is a yellow — rather than red — light: Proceed with caution.
"It gives us pause," he said in a recent interview.
While noncommittal about the proposed Utah project, Herbert insists that nuclear power is "safer than ever" and still up for discussion in his state.
"The lessons we learn from that horrific situation [in Japan] must not be lost as we discuss any possible future nuclear power generation here," he said during the release of his 10-year energy plan in March. "The disasters in Japan, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island will not preempt the debate of nuclear power — but they certainly will influence it."
Meanwhile, the world's nuclear agencies have jumped quickly to the task of assessing the Fukushima accident and learning from it.
The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has recommended that every nation with nuclear power commission an independent expert review of its programs.
In the United States, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission created a lessons-learned task force, said spokesman Scott Burnell. The panel established right away that new U.S. reactors already have anticipated and addressed one of the key problems at Fukushima: keeping fuel cool during a "full station blackout" power outage. Updated plant designs allow the plant to function during extended periods of power blackouts, such as the one suffered at Fukushima.
"The NRC continues to work on the recommendations the task force gave to the commission," he said, "in terms of what actions can and should be taken to enhance what is already an acceptable level of safety for U.S. reactors."
"We have learned something," said Adrian Heymer, of the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry trade association. "But, by and large, most of the lessons learned have already been picked up in the new designs."
David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, concurred that the industry has generally done a good job of translating accidents into safety improvements. But he surmised there will be conflicts ahead when regulators press for upgrades that reactor companies find too expensive.
"Fukushima," he said, "is going to drive those [safety] costs up."
Whatever added safety features are eventually agreed upon, the high-profile discussion of them appears to have paid off for the industry. NEI points to a recent poll as evidence that Fukushima has not ruined nuclear power's future.
Its telephone survey of 1,000 adults in September found that 62 percent favor nuclear power in the United States; 35 percent oppose it. That's a turnaround from when the disaster in Japan was unfolding and polls showed public opinion split down the middle.
Back in Utah, Blue Castle Holdings has been defending the nuclear industry in general and, in particular, its proposal for a 3,000 megawatt generating station near the eastern Utah community of Green River.
Nils Diaz, the former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Blue Castle's chief strategic officer, told state legislators last spring that a Fukushima-style accident is unlikely in the United States.
"Nuclear safety is really not rocket science," he said.
Yet, the NEI's message that nuclear energy is safe and supported by the public has been lost on some. Germany, for instance, has decided to dismantle its nuclear program by 2022. And Italy, which scrapped its nuclear program after Chernobyl in 1986, dropped the idea of building new plants.
Environmental activists say too many lessons from Fukushima have been unheeded by industry and regulators.
In a six-months-after review of Fukushima, Edwin Lyman, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the NRC is in danger of making the same mistake it did after 9/11 by allowing industry to stall critical security measures.
"The worldwide response to the Three Mile Island accident was clearly inadequate to prevent even worse events from occurring," he said. "The U.S. must respond to Fukushima in a much more comprehensive way or it may soon face an accident even worse than Fukushima."
Matt Pacenza, of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, said nuclear, even with the safety efforts of regulators and the industry, is just too risky because accidents do happen.
"Even if the likelihood is low," Pacenza said, "the consequences are devastating."
HEAL joined with other environmental groups from Nevada, Arizona and California this spring to urge Utah State Engineer Kent Jones to think hard about the potential harm Blue Castle's nuclear reactors could do to Colorado River water, which more than 25 million people relied on.
"As we've seen in Japan," the groups said, "accidents at nuclear reactors can quickly spiral out of control and lead to massive releases of radioactive materials into nearby air and water."
Herbert has assigned his energy adviser, Amanda Smith, to study how nuclear might fit into the state's future, perhaps with the help of new technology now being considered at the Idaho National Laboratory. Because the NRC oversees licensing nationwide, she said, the state must rely largely on federal regulators to ensure Blue Castle or any future nuclear project is safe.
"We are optimistic we can be part of the process," Smith said, "that we can air our concerns."
fahys@sltrib .com —
New nuclear power plant designs
O Slides and videos describing one of the Generation III+ nuclear power-plant design that has been extensively reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission > ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com