SENATE BILL: Comprehensive Protection of Nuclear Power Act (Law'd)

[TJ in Oregon]

I am willing to sponsor this bill in Marokai's absence.

[TJ in Oregon]

I would like to amend this bill for the reason that a geological surveyor would not be qualified to conduct a comprehensive environmental safety evaluation. I also found some of the wording about 'federal funding' a little strange.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I accept it as friendly

[TJ in Oregon]

Should we define "geological safety" somehow?

I would think it should be clear enough that it is refering to being built on a major fault line that experiences earthquakes large enough to cause damage.

[TJ in Oregon]

Short of dismantling an at risk plant, what could be done about a plant on or near a fault line, like the one in California?

Requiring a back-up generator is probably the best we can do. Keep in mind the disaster in Japan was not caused by damage directly to the reactor but from a lack of power to the cooling tower pumps.

[TJ in Oregon]

Should we define "geological safety" somehow?

I would think it should be clear enough that it is refering to being built on a major fault line that experiences earthquakes large enough to cause damage.

But is that adequate?  For example, would that cover the New Madrid Seismic Zone?  What if something like the Charleston earthquake happened again?  I mean, technically, the Yellowstone Caldera is a big geologically unsafe thing, but it's nowhere near a fault zone.

I don't think it makes sense for us to legislate whether specific fault lines are 'safe' for nuclear power plants to be built on; rather that ought to be left to the regulatory committee in conjuction with geologists. As far as the Yellowstone Caldera, I would sure hope a safety evaluation done by a geologist would consider such things.

[TJ in Oregon]

I believe we are ready for a vote.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye