News

 

The new steam generators at Three Mile Island have an unexpected flaw which is yet to be understood by Areva, the twice financially rescued French company (last year by US tax dollars) which built them, or by the engineers in the US nuclear industry. Fortunately, the engineers at TMI correctly determined that abnormal wear was occurring at unexpected locations on 257 steam generator tubes. Their observation caused Arkansas Nuclear to re-evaluate data which it had glossed-over indicating that the same thing was occurring at their reactor site.

These new "enhanced" steam generators were supposed to save money by decreasing maintenance and by increasing the amount of electrical power generated. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was so confident in the new metal alloys used in the steam generators that they would automatically extend inspection cycles to any licensee which requested it. But, now the NRC should mandate that the inspection of these new steam generators be more thorough and occur during each refueling outage. TMI will do this voluntarily.

The problem will probably be blamed on a design flaw which allowed steam tubes to bang against each other. Either the proximity of the tubes to each other, or inadequate stiffness can be blamed for the unexpected wear. The high temperatures of the pressurized water running through (and around) these tubes cause the tubes to expand and to bow sideways.

There are concerns that under abnormal conditions, when the temperatures can double or triple, additional tubes will bow even farther and then additional tubes may be compromised. Add to that the vibrations and shock waves caused by steam voids (which happened at TMI in 1979) and you have a large break loss of coolant accident on your hands as numerous tubes fail.

At the moment, there is still enough safety margin at TMI during normal conditions. Exelon claims that a "large break loss of coolant accident evaluation also demonstrates significant margin" as far as the steam generator tubes are concerned. Their report allows for tripled pressure differentials to support their analysis. However, there is no discussion of the temperature differences which allow the tubes to bow. During the 1979 emergency, temperatures in the reactor rose ten-fold. Steam generator "A" tore its guts apart.

The NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, which conducted a review in 2001 stated that, "The NRC staff does not currently have a technically defensible analysis of how steam generator tubes, which may be flawed, will behave under severe accident conditions in which the reactor coolant system remains pressurized."

Additionally, there is a special manner in which tube failure can cause what is known at a guillotine rupture accident. If a high temperature jet rushes from a failed tube and cuts through an adjacent tube, the process can repeat itself in a rapidly cascading failure. A report on experiments by the Rockwell International states "[Damage] occurred on the surrounding tubes due to the high temperature reaction."

Knowing this, and despite the chances of its occurrence being very low, the NRC should address this as a Safety Issue. A spokesman for TMI stated that the newly found flaws are not considered a safety issue.

The problem reminds me of a fatal flaw that existed during the Apollo Moon Program. The original Saturn rockets had a vibration problem called "pogo." Liquid fuel slammed against the bottom of the fuel tank and then slammed against the top. The forces threatened to tear apart the rocket. Designers solved the problem by installing baffles to prevent the sloshing of the fuel.

Now back to nuclear thinking: For years the industry compared itself to "rocket science" and that ordinary citizens were unable to understand the complexities involved. Therefore citizens who worried about nuclear safety were viewed as ignorant, over-emotional pests. As the years went on and citizens became very sophisticated with their knowledge and familiarity of the regulatory process, citizens were accused of wanting to over-regulate the industry. New cries went up from the industry and even from the NRC's chairman Nils Diaz, "This is not rocket science."

The steam generator concerns are on the level of rocket science. These are new materials, higher pressures and temperatures may be involved, and new operational conditions and data; just like rocket science. No one should forget that experiments are still being thrust on the public in this nuclear realm.

The Hubble Telescope problem was another example of rocket science gone awry. One very small miscalculation made the telescope useless until a multi-million dollar fix could be installed. Similarly, a dreadful oversight by the nuclear industry has severely damaged the reactor containment buildings at reactor sites in Ohio and Florida. The problem was caused when holes were being cut into the reactor containment buildings to replace worn out steam generators or other reactor components. The circular concrete buildings have metal tendons which are tensioned to add strength to the concrete. But, engineers cut through these tendons and the concrete cracked apart! Then they had the audacity to say that the damage could not be predicted! The projected cost for repairs at the Florida Crystal River plant was $2.5 billion dollars. A few months ago new cracks were found and the plant may be totally useless now.

Scott Portzline TMI Alert

 

Type: 

Environment America, January 24, 2012:
http://www.environmentamerica.org/news/ame/nuclear-power-plants-threaten-drinking-water-49-million-americans
The drinking water for millions of Americans could be at risk of radioactive contamination from a leak or accident at a local nuclear power plant, according to a new study, “Too Close to Home: Nuclear Power and the Threat to Drinking Water.” The drinking water for 49 million Americans is within 50 miles of an active nuclear power plant – the distance the Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses to measure risk to food and water supplies.  Major cities, including New York, Boston, Philadelphia, San Diego, Cleveland and Detroit receive their drinking water from sources within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. Even a common leak at a nuclear power plant can threaten the drinking water for millions of people. In fact, 75 percent of U.S. nuclear plants have leaked tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen that can cause cancer and genetic defects.
 

Type: 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 17, 2012

Contact: David Weisman (805) 704-1810 Rochelle Becker (858) 337-2703

david@a4nr.org Rochelle@a4nr.org

California energy policy leader John Geesman to lead legal intervention in CPUC nuclear proceedings on behalf of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

On this anniversary of the devastating 1994 Northridge earthquake, the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility hopes to “shake out” the complacency of state regulators and utilities by announcing the retention of veteran energy policy leader John Geesman as legal counsel in their proceedings before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Mr. Geesman’s long career in energy policy includes having been executive director of the California Energy Commission (CEC) during Jerry Brown’s first term as governor, serving as a commissioner on the CEC, former chair of the California Power Exchange, past board member of the CAISO, and a prominent opponent of PG&E’s defeated Proposition 16 in 2010.

The Alliance is currently intervening in PG&E’s request for $64 million in ratepayer funding for seismic studies at Diablo Canyon—an increase of $47 million over their initial proposal. Questions have been raised regarding not only the cost, but also the merits of the scope of the study. Mr. Geesman concludes, "The fact that the CPUC staff could recently rubber-stamp Southern California Edison's proposed seismic studies for the San Onofre nuclear plant without review by any seismic experts shows what we're up against."

In the wake of the San Bruno gas explosion and revelations about the CPUC and PG&E’s negligent oversight, these concerns are justifiably magnified when addressing California’s aging—and seismically vulnerable—nuclear reactors. “San Bruno was tragic,” comments Alliance outreach coordinator David Weisman, “San Bruno plus radiation would be catastrophic.”

Geesman finds a worthy ally in the Alliance, noting that, “More than any other organizations working on nuclear issues, A4NR is focused on forcing the California government to do its job. I want to help them do that.” Alliance executive director Rochelle Becker is equally enthusiastic about the partnership, stating, “Nobody finds the dry rot in our regulatory system more effectively than John Geesman, and it is an honor to have him represent us.”

Testimony and hearings for PG&E’s seismic funding case at the CPUC get under way in February.

 

Type: 

 

THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 - SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE CALLS WITH EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC TO DISCUSS 2011 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTIONS
(TAC NO. ME7229)

Download ML113550167

Type: 

From The Economist:

There is a breathtaking serenity to the valley that winds from the town of Namie, on the coast of Fukushima prefecture, into the hills above. A narrow road runs by a river that passes through steep ravines, studded with maples. Lovely it may be, but it is the last place where you would want to see an exodus of 8,000 people fleeing meltdowns at a nearby nuclear-power plant.

Along that switchback road the day after the earthquake and tsunami on March 11th 2011, it took Namie’s residents more than three hours to drive 30km (19 miles) to what they thought was the relative safety of Tsushima, a secluded hamlet. What they did not know was that they were heading into an invisible fog of radioactive matter that has made this one of the worst radiation hotspots in Japan—far worse than the town they abandoned, just ten minutes’ drive from the gates of the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. It was not until a New York Times report in August that many of the evacuees realised they had been exposed to such a danger, thanks to government neglect.

Read article

Type: 

From Environment News Service:

In the context of Indian Point's relicensing, the attorney general's office argued that the NRC has the obligation to require Entergy to complete analyses of cost-beneficial measures, or to require that the measures be adopted - consistent with NRC's own regulations, as well as those of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

On July 15, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a decision, agreeing with the attorney general that Indian Point cannot be relicensed without completing the legally-required analyses of its severe accident mitigation measures.

Now, Schneiderman says, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must require Indian Point's owner, Entergy, to either adopt cost-effective upgrades that would improve responses and control the impact of a severe accident, or provide a compelling reason why it will not do so.

Read article

Type: 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, before he died, said that December 7th would live in infamy.
 
He certainly won't say the same about December 15th, since he's dead, but if he weren't he might.
 
Attached are two licensee event reports both dated December 15, 2011.
 
One is for Peach Bottom in Pennsylvania and the other is for Perry in Ohio. Both involve violations of federal safety regulations (Criterion 17 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50) requiring two or more connections between a nuclear power plant and its offsite electrical grid. Both times, there were one or fewer connections.
 
On October 18, 2011, Perry was preparing to restart from an outage. At 12:12 am (way early in the morning), workers performed a surveillance test to verify that two or more connections to the offsite power grid were available and operable. At 4:19 pm that afternoon with the reactor being started up, workers found that one of the required offsite power connections had been disconnected and Danger tags hung. Workers fixed that illegal configuration within an hour or so.
 
On November 16, 2011, workers at Peach Bottom belatedly figured out that a modification installed at the plant in the mid-1990s to "upgrade the reliability of the offsite sources" actually failed to do so due to "an inadequate design of the auxiliary power" to the new transformer. Basically, that new transformer used the same auxiliary power source as another transformer, such that failure of that auxiliary power source disabled both transformers. [The transformers in questions were connections between the offsite electrical grid and the plant --- they increased the voltage of outgoing electricity to that of the grid and decreased the voltage of incoming voltage to that of the plant.] The LER was submitted because Peach Bottom had counted operability of these two transformers as satisfying the federal safety regulation for two or more offsite power sources, when in fact they were but a single source due to their lack of separation/independence.
 
Where's the beef?
 
Safety studies generally rely on the backup power supply from onsite emergency diesel generators and take little credit for the normal power provided by the electrical grid. But there's a caveat --- the reliability of the offsite electrical grid is a factor in the safety studies. The less reliable the offsite grid, the more reliability the emergency diesel generators must be. Also, the now well-known station blackout event (e.g., the Fukushima script) ends when either an onsite emergency diesel generator is recovered or offsite electrical power is restored. Having two or more connections to the offsite power grid BEFORE the station blackout event is considered in determining how long it'll take to restore one of them.
 
Once again, U.S. federal safety regulations protect Americans from disasters such as that occurring at Fukushima last March.
 
Or rather, these regulations would provide that protection if only they were met.
 
Thanks,
Dave Lochbaum
UCS

Download ML11356A077
Download ML11356A089

Type: 

No. 12-001
January 3, 2012
 
 
NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON ASSUMPTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF EXTENDED STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks public comment on a report updating preliminary assumptions for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the agency will develop to analyze the effects of storing spent nuclear fuel from the nation’s commercial power reactors for as much as 200 years.
 
The EIS will be part of the agency’s effort to update its Waste Confidence Decision and Rule, last updated in 2010. The report being made available for comment is an early effort to obtain public input about the general scope of the EIS before the NRC formally initiates the EIS “scoping” process. The EIS will include analyses of environmental impacts that are directly related to the long-term handling, storage and transportation of commercial spent fuel and high- level waste.
 
The report discusses several storage scenarios, including at nuclear power plants, regional or centralized storage sites or a combination of storage and reprocessing of spent fuel. A key assumption is that extended storage would be managed under a regulatory program similar to current regulation of spent fuel. To analyze the impacts associated with the scenarios, the staff will develop generic, composite sites for each scenario, and these sites will account for a range of characteristics of actual reactor and storage sites.
 
The report, entitled “Background and Preliminary Assumptions for an Environmental Impact Statement – Long-Term Waste Confidence Update,” was posted Jan. 3 on the NRC website. The report updates assumptions first laid out in SECY-11-0029, dated Feb. 28, 2011.
 
As revised in 2010, the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule included the Commission’s confidence that spent fuel can be safely managed until it undergoes final disposition. At the same time, the Commission directed the staff to prepare a long-term update to the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule that would cover extended storage of spent fuel. This long-term update is to
be informed by the analysis and conclusions of the EIS anticipated in the current report.

Comments on the report may be filed by email to  WCOutreach@nrc.gov or by U.S mail to Christine Pineda, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Mailstop EBB-2B2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follo
 

Type: 

THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 - SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE CALLS WITH EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC TO DISCUSS 2011 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INSPECTIONS
(TAC NO. ME7229)

Download ML113550167

 

Type: 

Pages