Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant Flooding, Part IV

Today’s Omaha World-Herald contains further evidence confirming that officials knew about a future flooding problem by early April, before the Fort Calhoun plant was shut down. News stories since April had maintained that the shutdown was solely for “refueling” and unrelated to the flood, but then on Jun. 28, the NRC’s blog mentioned flooding as another reason for the shutdown. In today’s paper, in response to criticism of the Corps of Engineers for not releasing water from upstream Missouri dams earlier in the spring or winter, the Corps said, “the full flood-control capacity of the Missouri dams was available by late January — and that it was unclear until early April this would be a year of higher-than-normal reservoir releases. By early May, the corps accelerated its releases of floodwater and said 2011 had the potential to be the second-highest runoff season in 113 years of recordkeeping.”

So, it sounds like they discovered the problem later than they should have, if they had been estimating snowpack accurately. Then, once they realized the impending problem, they waited until after the plant shutdown to start increasing the flow of floodwaters downstream. As recently as a few days ago, however, the COE denied that flood risk to the nuclear plant had anything to do with its dam release calculations, which prompted criticism from Nebraska Sen. Nelson. Shortly thereafter, the NRC asked for the COE’s 2009 and 2010 analyses of what would be expected in the event of a catastrophic dam failure.

For once, it would be nice to hear a straightforward, honest version of these events as they happen, rather than having to reconstruct things later based on changes in the official story, and little details that come out after the fact.


3 responses to “Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant Flooding, Part IV

  1. RichardPerry

    Calhoun Plant, why in every report they say the plant is safe but never the pool of rods. I believe that again we see their lips moving so they must be lying. They claim that no radiation has leaked but again refer to plant no reference to pool of rods. How can you have the pools flooded and not radiate the water in the river? When the water lowers are they going to have problems cooling the rods as I believe the cooling water is heavy water. Why I believe so is you can make the pools smaller by reducing reaction with heavy water even though it is more expensive.

  2. Richard, I have noticed the same thing–nary a mention of the spent rod pool in these news stories! Yet when reading about the Fukushima crisis, it’s clear that the rod pools were an enormous concern.

    • RichardPerry

      If they have recorded records for less than 150 years how did they know the flood level in the last 500 years was safe for the plant security as they boasted about. I do not think there would be any evidence after 450 years as damage would have grown over. Did they have a séance’ with past Indian chief’s. Again their lips were moving.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s