Cooling tubes at FPL St. Lucie nuke plant show significant wear

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/cooling-tubes-at-fpl-st-lucie-nuke-plant-show-significant-wear/2166886

From: Rod Adams <rod_adams@atomicinsights.com>

Subject: St Lucie steam generators - Article dated Feb 22, 2014

Date: February 23, 2014 4:23:23 AM EST

To: ipenn@tampabay.com

February 23, 2014

Dear Mr. Penn:

You have done a masterful job of raising concerns and uncertainty about the condition of the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, which produces a substantial portion of the electricity consumed in Florida.

Your piece contains precise numbers and numerous quotes from people on both sides of the issue, those who are worried and those who are confident that the plant is safe to operate at its current licensed power output.

The problem I have with the piece, however, is that you have artfully selected words that increase the level of concern. You have also given equal weight to the words provided by professionals representing responsible organizations like the NRC and professionals who are full time worriers about anything associated with nuclear energy. If you are interested, I will provide examples.

The end result for readers is to make them uncomfortable and concerned. The story raises their level of distrust and ads momentum to efforts to force St. Lucie and other nuclear power plants to retire early.

Almost immediately after the antinuclear activists succeeded in forcing San Onofre to permanently shut down, California's wholesale electricity prices increased by nearly 60% due to increasing dependence on natural gas. For the same reason, the state's CO2 emissions increased by more than 10%.

Consumers and voters, however, were never effectively told that the San Onofre steam generators did not pose a risk to the public. They were not effectively informed that the plant could have operated safely for many more years by taking the same actions that FPL is taking to monitor the wear and plug tubes as needed to take them out of service before they leaked. As is the case at St. Lucie, that course of action would have been done under the watchful eyes of the federal safety regulator, which a responsible, skilled, safety-conscious, risk-averse organization.

The corporations who supply the 300-400 million cubic feet of natural gas each day needed to produce the same amount of power that San Onofre produced are very pleased with the results of the coordinated actions by the groups professionally employed to halt the use of nuclear energy. While it was operating, San Onofre produced its rated power about 7500-8000 hours per year.

I'm willing to continue the conversation. I'm pretty sure you are unaware that the people you serve would be hurt while the gas companies will smile every day on the way to the bank if the plant shuts down before it is worn out.

Disclosure: I have been writing about nuclear energy on the web for nearly 20 years. I'm not a steam generator expert, but I have a pretty good understanding of the technology and the regulatory agency. I have a personal connection to St. Lucie and FPL; my father retired from FPL in 1987 after 35 years with the company as an electrical engineer. I have fond memories of the company picnics and Christmas parties.

Best regards,

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

PS - Since it is early Sunday morning, I suspect it will be a day or so before I hear from you. Please understand that I regularly write about public communications efforts and antinuclear pressure at Atomic Insights and for other publications. I sometimes include examples of letters to reporters and editors to help others who are concerned about the issue.