Here’s a lede I didn’t expect to read in any newspaper: “It can be good to have a nuclear power plant nearby if you have a flood disaster.”

That counter-intuitive assertion is the starting point for Rick Smith’s latest article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette. Smith continues,

A new national study suggests that no lives were lost in Cedar Rapids’ flood disaster of 2008 because of the proximity of the Duane Arnold Energy Center to Cedar Rapids and the requirement that comes with a nuclear power plant in the neighborhood to plan and train for a radiological disaster.

Smith quotes Mike Goldberg, director of Linn County Emergency Management:

“Having relationships ahead of the disaster is a good thing,” Goldberg said. “And because we are a radiological emergency response zone, we are able to drill and exercise with our partners in the various disciplines and jurisdictions many times a year so we’re all familiar with each other.

“There’s the old saying, ‘Disaster is a lousy time to exchange business cards.'”

At the time of the flood, community leaders in law enforcement, public works, transit, schools, hospital and other disciplines converged on the county’s Emergency Operations Center at Kirkwood Community College and got to work, Goldberg said.

“Everybody came in and sat down at their usual table with their usual phone and usual maps and usual equipment,” he recalled. “It was just not a radiological event. It was a flood event. But they did the same mission.”

I haven’t read the newly published study “Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative.” I infer that its authors advocate investing more in disaster preparedness, because training for one kind of calamity pays off in the face of any unexpected crisis.

I couldn’t agree more. Every city, large and small, should train its officials on how to handle a potential mass evacuation or other threat to public safety.

Here’s the thing, though. “It can be good to have a nuclear power plant nearby if you have a flood disaster,” as long as the floodwater doesn’t affect the reactor or waste storage tanks. Just ask the people who used to live in now-uninhabitable areas of Japan.

Following the logic of Smith’s report, Cedar Rapids residents are fortunate to live near a facility that requires training for doomsday scenarios. That is true only if you assume that the radiological nightmare will never occur. The Union of Concerned Scientists noted on the one-year anniversary of the Fukushima disaster,

Nature dealt a crippling blow to Fukushima Dai-ichi, but with local variation of specifics it could have been any reactor on Earth. In the past year and in the United States alone, reactors faced weather-related emergency conditions four times: tornados at Surry in Virginia and Browns Ferry in Alabama, flooding at Fort Calhoun in Nebraska, and an earthquake at North Anna in Virginia.

While none of these events caused a disaster like that experienced at Fukushima, they all involved steps down the same path. In all cases, natural hazards either disabled or challenged the normal source of power. In many cases, the backup source of power was also impaired.

Missouri River flooding in June 2011 overcame the flood wall at Omaha’s Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, not far from Council Bluffs. Fortunately, the flood water didn’t get into the reactor core, but the nuclear power plant still hasn’t reopened, in part because of various safety violations.

If a major flood or tornado or even an earthquake along the New Madrid Fault line affected the Des Moines metro area, I would expect local and Polk County officials to be ready to execute a plan, not stuck “exchanging business cards” with each other. But I would also be grateful not to have major radiation leaks on the list of things to worry about. Competent disaster planning shouldn’t depend on a nuclear threat nearby.