NRC Engineers Urge Shutdown of Nuclear Plants If Design Flaw Not Fixed (utilitydive.com) 164
mdsolar writes: A group of engineers in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission say they have identified a design flaw in nearly all nuclear reactors in the country that should result in their mandatory shutdown unless operators fix the problem, Reuters reports. In late February, the engineers petitioned the NRC to order immediate enforcement actions to correct the design flaw, which they say could result in damage to cooling systems and ultimately lead to an emergency situation. The filing asks the agency to respond by March 21 and is a part of a standard NRC process, according to the news outlet. The filing stems from an incident in January 2012, when Exelon's Byron 2 unit in Illinois experienced an automatic reactor trip from full power after an undervoltage condition was detected. The unit was shut down for a week, in what is known as an open phase condition created by an unbalanced voltage. The NRC engineers say such an event could cause an electrical short, reducing the abilituy of cooling systems to operate.
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are all these non-stories submitted by mdsolar being approved? They identified a possible flaw and recommended a fix. Nothing to see here, move on.
Re: So what? (Score:2)
"If it bleeds it leads." Fear, fear, bacon fear.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Simply amazing all the anonymous cowards posting that his is not a story.
Nuclear power has four big problems:
1) It's expensive
2) It's complicated
3) It's dangerous
4) It's managed to create short-term profit.
The other problems are derivative of those. They exist, and they are severe, but they can be handled. And the main problem of the 4 big ones is number 4...though that would be less of a problem without the other three. And profit shouldn't only be calculated in dollars, but should also include such things as political power and centralized control.
Re: (Score:2)
The other problems are derivative of those. They exist, and they are severe, but they can be handled.
So far, only the first of these problems ever seems to get handled properly.
And the main problem of the 4 big ones is number 4...though that would be less of a problem without the other three.
Yeah, it would, but you can't just wave that away! If your plan isn't resistant to human actors acting in poor faith, then your plan is bad.
And profit shouldn't only be calculated in dollars, but should also include such things as political power and centralized control.
Those are drawbacks, not benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
I listed them as costs, not as benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
1) It *IS* expensive and dangerous. The listed costs are highly subsidized. (Well, all power sources are subsidized, but nuclear power is more so than the others, even to the extent of the government insuring against an extreme accident.
2) Is arguing about something with no operating examples. India is (or was) talking about Thorium cycle reactors, but I don't know if they are going ahead with it. And all reactors operating in the US are quite complex. How do you fix a leak in the radioactive part of a
Re: (Score:1)
Take your pick:
a.) Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
b.) Meet the new boss, they weren't informed buyers and haven't worked out that mdsolar is a paid shill yet.
c.) Some of the above.
d.) All of the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep I have been wondering the same thing. A lot of new things, "news for nerds", are happening on the nuclear industry, next generation designs are approved and soon built. 90's and 00's slashdot would have published those stories. I think eco-hipster coup happened at some time and now this is the new "green slashdot" where nuclear is evil, no matter what. What a pity.
Re: So what? (Score:2)
Oooo this is bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking news: Nuclear Reactors may experience trouble if not properly cooled!
Re:Oooo this is bad (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oooo this is bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only that, but the RBMK units at Chernobyl use a positive void coefficient - if there are voids in the coolant, it speeds up the reaction. Thus, a loss of coolant causes a runaway problem. This was one of the MANY problems that stacked up to create the Chernobyl disaster.
Every single licensed commercial reactor in the US uses a negative void coefficient, so if you have a loss of coolant, the reaction shuts down. If you can't get coolant back onto the fuel, you might end up with some melt, but it will stay contained (Three Mile Island) rather than EXPLODING and showering radioactive debris over hundreds of miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single licensed commercial reactor in the US uses a negative void coefficient, so if you have a loss of coolant, the reaction shuts down. If you can't get coolant back onto the fuel, you might end up with some melt, but it will stay contained (Three Mile Island) rather than EXPLODING and showering radioactive debris over hundreds of miles.
Weren't the Fukushima reactors by Westinghouse, and of American design?
If that's so, how did they get significant melt that breached containment at the bottom of the reactors?
Also worth noting tangentially, they did have explosions and corium was dispersed and radioactive material also get dispersed, I think over hundreds of miles (probably mostly ocean but across the main island too).
Would be interested in having the above clarified if anyone has more knowledge and maybe some links.
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't the Fukushima reactors by Westinghouse, and of American design?
And we have numerous reactors here in the USA which are highly similar, and six which are identical [nbcnews.com]. So don't believe the hype, use google. I did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they did have a meltdown due to loss of the cooling required to remove decay heat after the reaction has stopped. Tjernobyl however went prompt critical and the containment vessel (such as it was, i.e. not really) exploded. That's a much worse scenario that Fukushima.
Yes, they did have explosions at Fukushima, that did release radioactive material into the atmosphere, but that wasn't from the reactor exploding proper. That was from loss of cooling melting the fuel rods, making them so hot they stripped
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting post - thank you.
Anything you can enlighten us with regarding CanDu reactors?
That's what we have around here - "here" being Canada, but there aren't any within 4,000 km from here.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I looked it up, and CANDU are run with with a positive void coefficient, which is bad. But since the people behind the CANDU reactor design realised this, they put in passive design elements to counter this. The thermal mass of the coolant is such that boiling takes a long time. And another interesting feature is that since it's a heavy water moderated reactor, cooling it (even in a makeshift emergency scenario) with light water will not add to the reactivity.
That said, even though it has some interest
Re: (Score:2)
mdsolar again (Score:1, Interesting)
Gee, it's mdsolar and his anti-nuclear rants again.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Overblown (Score:1, Insightful)
Unsurprisingly, mdsolar is posting this as soon as possible, because he has a hard on for hating on solar power. They've had a whole 96 hours to think about this. The world is going to end! OMG! They're not doing anything.
I'll just ignore this for a while because, frankly, this is way too early to give a crap.
FWIW, the 2012 incident didn't do anything anyone but a solar panel hugging, nuke hating asshole would care about, either. It will be corrected, but as far as emergencies go, this one isn't one be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unsurprisingly, mdsolar is posting this as soon as possible, because he has a hard on for hating on solar power. They've had a whole 96 hours to think about this. The world is going to end! OMG! They're not doing anything.
Great logic: mdsolar is biased towards solar power, therefore ignore the engineers at the NRC... because mdsolar... biased...
I'll just ignore this for a while because, frankly, this is way too early to give a crap.
FWIW, the 2012 incident didn't do anything anyone but a solar panel hugging, nuke hating asshole would care about, either.
You'll ignore it because you're a possibly biased, "nuke loving asshole" perhaps, but thankfully the engineers at NRC aren't ignoring it.
It will be corrected, but as far as emergencies go, this one isn't one because it has happened 13 times in the past 14 years and... nothing of consequence happened. It will happen one more time before it's fixed and... nothing of consequence will happen. It went unnoticed for several weeks and... nothing of consequence happened.
Logic failure: "I rolled no 6 for the last 6 rolls, so I'll take needless risks, self-assured that I'll not roll a six for a long time."
But, because nuclear safety is taken seriously (unlike employee safety when installing solar panels) this will be corrected quickly and without incident.
I didn't realize that workmen's safety compliance was waived for solar installations - can you provide a link for
Non-Story (Score:1)
Nuclear accounts for approximately 20% of the power generated in the US. How, pray tell, does the NRC plan to replace this generation capacity?
Oh wait, it's mdsolar, all nuclear is bad and we live in a happy slappy unicorn world where the consequences don't matter. It's a non-story regarding a minor problem that somebody wants to blow out of proportion, because NUCLEAR EVIL.
Re: (Score:2)
MDSolar and his crowd are preparing lawsuits as we speak so 3 years from now he can cite the millions of dollars spent defending frivolous suits as why Nuclear is too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear accounts for approximately 20% of the power generated in the US. How, pray tell, does the NRC plan to replace this generation capacity?
It will be cheaper to fix the flaw than to shut down and fixing is an option.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be cheaper to fix the flaw than to shut down and fixing is an option.
I'm not sure about 'cheaper'. The plants are all roughly 40 years old at this point, and this is only being discovered 'now'? That would tend to indicate a low probability event.
Though yes, I'm sure that as the knowledge of the problem is disseminated, the relevant engineers will design fixes, to be deployed during the next appropriate maintenance cycle.
Said engineering is actually some of the problem - Because nearly every plant is, at this point, unique, the engineering for each is also unique, and ther
Re: (Score:2)
They won't be replacing anything. These engineers petitioned the NRC all of 3 days ago. The NRC hasn't ruled on anything yet. And, should they put in some kind of regulation for this to be fixed (and they should), the operators will fix it the next time they are shut down for maintenance. And nothing of consequence will happen at all. The world keeps turning, and these reactors keep boiling water.
And plug the hole in the ceiling (Score:3)
I don't buy it. (Score:1)
I believe that there may be an issue that needs to be addressed. But the hyperbole? Nah. If this flaw has been around for all this time without being triggered, it's probably overkill to call for such an extreme response. How about maybe a "we need to fix this reasonably soon" reaction instead?
mdsolar (Score:4, Informative)
For those new around here, mdsolar is Slashdot's long-time anti-unclear troll, so I'm posting this as a forewarning to you. His posting history shows he regularly contributes anti-nuclear articles, and when he gets told, he typically resorts to personal attacks on those he disagrees with. If you're not interested in going down this path, the best option is just to ignore him. As they say: don't feed the trolls. Now if we could only get the powers-that-be here to ignore his submissions...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's safe to ignore calls that the sky is falling, if the person screaming it is indeed Chicken Little. Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
To continue the metaphor, even if the sky were, indeed, calling; Chicken Little has cried "WOLF!!!" so many times that he has no credibility left.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that real engineers are discussing it disproves you. Engineers found a possible problem. Engineers brought it to the regulatory body. The regulatory body will then decide what needs to be done about it.
What you're failing to recognize is that this particular story was presented with the typical doom-and-gloom FUD that mdsolar presents everything anti-nuclear with. This is a problem that can happen with literally any three-phase electrical system regardless of where it's installed, and it can be
SCRAM failure (Score:2)
This situation is a risk of damage to the cooling equipment, which, if damaged, would lead to a meltdown, with or without boron. Not the same since cooling is the last line of defense.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I'll often ask people arguing for something to do their best to arg
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Waste disposal? Easy... build breeder reactors and process it into more fuel. Anything that can't be processed into more fuel, tell the NIMBYs to go pound sand and put it in Yucca Mountain. (Also, store it there until the breeder reactors are built.) It's not as if it's actually in anyone's "backyard" anyway. No one is going to be building the next Las Vegas in the Nevada Test Site. And if weather patterns don't change and get the Colorado River adequately flowing again, Las Vegas may not even be in L
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem with Yucca mountain is casino NIMBYs with utterly insane amounts of political power.
I also suggest you look at the Harford website about reprocessing into MOX - a bit of a better idea than expensive 1960s fast breeders that were a dead end and could use hardly any of the waste anyway. The Indians have a breeder reactor design that shows a
Re: (Score:2)
perfectly reasonable to safely to ignore fuckwits with an agenda
Like the engineers at NRC?
Or yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Like the engineers at NRC?
Engineers aren't free from having an agenda. Reading the report I can see that this is typical of every story ever: One side says the world will end, the other side says you can ignore everything and the truth is always in the middle (especially when a committee is involved).
This scenario can be avoided by someone pushing a button to start a generator.
This scenario is easily identified by monitoring on the coolant pump seals.
Yeah it should be automated so it's "fixed", but an urgent mandated fix is hardly w
Re: (Score:2)
And I knew that anyone expressing doubt about the value of nuclear power would be attacked.
For those new around here you'll find that the articles mdsolar post are accurate and good sources of information from actual scientists and engineers.
Unclear power - thats an interesting characterization of Nucl
Re: (Score:2)
A clueless fanboy's definition of a troll is any mention of their pet topic that contains something other than high praise.
I wish they would actually learn abut their pet topics and become fanboys with a clue instead, it would cut down on the meaningless noise.
Re: (Score:2)
A clueless fanboy's definition of a troll is any mention of their pet topic that contains something other than high praise. I wish they would actually learn abut their pet topics and become fanboys with a clue instead, it would cut down on the meaningless noise.
So true, most argue without facts and have nothing much to offer.
I'm a big nuclear supporter (Score:2)
Unfixed for two weeks and they didn't notice... (Score:2, Interesting)
...and it's apparently a standard in all of the nuclear reactors in the country, only one of which had one single event. Which didn't do any actual damage.
Yeah, I'm going to go with "this isn't that big of a problem in reality" for $1000, Alex.
Re: (Score:2)
The NRC report documents 2 events at Byron Station Unit 1. There were also events at South Texas, Unit 2, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 , and James A. Fitzpatrick Power Plant in the US, and Bruce Power Plant in Canada, Forsmark Unit 3 in Sweden, and Dungeness B power plant in UK. Some faults took several weeks to detect because the power source was not used during normal plant operation.
At Byron Station where the open phase h
Re: (Score:2)
So we're actually back to 1 near miss for this fault. 1 near miss in 10s of thousands of operating years across reactors in America.
Give the man his $1000 back.
Excellent! (Score:3, Funny)
The same blog notes a continuing problem with slack operations at the Springfield plant. Because of its hiring of two-dimensional yellow employees with diminished concern about safety and a poor diet, closure of the local Lard Lad franchise and alcoholism awareness training for all employees was recommended. Video of high-level waste being accidentally brought home in an employee's car and being tossed out onto a public street when discovered was submitted to the NRC in evidence.
And the primary design flaw. (Score:2)
Allowing idiots to marshal public sentiment and essentially destroy the nuclear power industry in the US. Had this not been allowed to happen, most of these plants would be gone and we'd be on to newer, safer generations of power plants by now.
Re: (Score:2)
If we want something modern in a few years time we are going to have to buy it from China or Russia and be opposed by the nuclear lobby at every step.
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear industry only has itself to blame.
Yeah, that's bullshit first to last.
I'm not saying that the industry itself is blameless.
I'm just saying that it having ONLY itself to blame is crap.
People have been getting indoctrinated into the "Nuclear = BOMBZ!" cult for most of the last 70 years.
Re: (Score:2)
True there are also the banks and the Republican Party being mostly owned by the oil industry, especially foreign owned portions of the oil industry. And there are others. ONLY was a poor choice but the nuclear lobby has turned into rent seekers and the nuclear industry has eaten it's own children. The only hopes of advancement come from outside, hopefully military spinoffs but even those are more likely to be developed offshore than in the USA.
Now this kids is why you don't have a monoculture (Score:2)
If your electrician did this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not like the country needs power or anything...
The country doesn't needs nuclear meltdowns; neither does its power grid. If you shut down power plants, power gets more expensive and other power plants open. If a reactor melts down, not only is the land around it unusable for a while but the irrational public says, "ZOMG! Nuclear!" and you can't open a new nuclear plant for forty years.
If there is a problem, and there's no reason to believe there isn't, it should be fixed now before the height of summer A/C demand. Cooling is an incredible draw on ou
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The world could use more nature parks.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if you read the NRC request rationally, they are saying: fix this, if you don't fix this then you should shut down.
They are not saying "shut them all down, immediately."
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The risk isn't meltdown - it's emergency shutdown. Did you read TFS?
Actually, according to TFA, the risk is reduced ability of the emergency cooling systems to operate. This is basically what happened in Fukushima, and it led to something much worse than emergency shutdown.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, nothing happened to the cooling system in Fukushima, the backup generators and power feed lines were washed away, leaving no way at all to power the cooling systems. This is hardly the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I mean, the reactors are water cooled, right? Seems like Fukushima had plenty of water ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem wasn't the cooling system, it was the fact that the cooling system didn't work!"
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem wasn't the cooling system, it was the fact that the cooling system didn't work!"
No, nothing happened to the cooling system. If they are powered down thats the very definition of 'nothing happening'!
Re: (Score:2)
Let me see if I understand what you're saying: The cooling system's power supply is not technically part of the cooling system?
Does that mean that the power supply in my computer is technically not part of my computer?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me see if I understand what you're saying: The cooling system's power supply is not technically part of the cooling system?
Does that mean that the power supply in my computer is technically not part of my computer?
No, sure the power supply is part of the cooling system but, purely in the context of the cooling system, if its powered down then it isn't doing anything. If it isn't doing anything then, technically, in the context of the cooling system alone, nothing happened. This doesn't include side effects of the cooling system doing nothing and, therefore, having nothing happen to it.
Surely thats obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'll bite.
Chernobyl: Poorly conducted cooling system shutdown test. Result: Meltdown.
Fukushima Daiichi: Cooling system
Re: (Score:2)
But surely, a cooling system that powers down just when you need it reflects a design flaw. Isn't that also obvious?
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. The earthquake damaged the cooling system, and the loss of monitoring capability scuppered attempts to pump water into the system with fire engines. Basically a valve was in the wrong position and syphoned the water off, but there was no way to know because the monitoring system was broken by the earthquake and tsunami damage made it inaccessible.
Re: Have they thought this through? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Have they thought this through? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I wouldn't rule out special interests being involved; how many engineers would turn down a nice $10 million dollar cheque from exxon or BP to just make a big huff over a minor problem?
The payoff could be enormous compared to the cost.
I wouldn't take their concerns at face value - we know too little about their motivations; there needs to be independent peer review to see if their concerns have merit or not.
I'd like to see you repeat that accusation in a cage with the engineers you're trying to put down. I think the results wouldn't be pretty for you.
Actually they're probably civilized enough to not beat you up but if looks of disdain could kill you'd be dead.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An open phase fault means that one of the three power phases has lost voltage. This would not trip over current circuit breakers, and some equipment like motors for pumps and cooling systems may continue to operate, but their performance would be severely degraded, or if stopped may fail to start, even though they appear to have voltage. Under these degraded conditions, motors may be internally damaged by overheating.
Phase loss detection relays are fairly
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is the next time they go subcritical for fueling or maintenance, they can install such a phase loss detection relay, and the problem is then taken care of.
Sounds like a plan!
Re: (Score:2)
More exactly, the motor will run a bit rougher and will lose some power (a little under 1/3rd).
They SHOULD detect this condition and take necessary measures, but it's hardly an OMG shut them all down now emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
It will increase the draw by 50% on each running phase unless the motor stalls. It can be bad if the motor is at the edge of it's capability when the phase drops out, but remember, these motors drive cooling pumps for a nuclear reactor, so they are larger than necessary to start with. If the reactor is scramed, they won't need to be anywhere near full capacity to keep things going.
This already happened in 2012 and it wasn't even news worthy.
Mod up (Score:2)
Mod up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The emergency that this particular flaw leads to is a reactor shutdown, which is exactly what happened at Exelon's Byron 2 unit and (according to the linked article) it's happened 12 other times in the past 14 years. And what do you know? No meltdowns.
For this to become a meltdown, the reactors would have to have other far more serious flaws that prevent them from shutting down properly. That clearly isn't the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain to us what an open phase is (don't go look it up). If you don't know, then you're talking from the wrong orifice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Have they thought this through? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't sound like it's a major design flaw; they just have to detect an open phase condition more quickly, or provide an alternative power source to the emergency cooling pumps.
One of the few happy lessons from Fukushima is that defense-in-depth works -- at least to prevent mishaps from developing into the worst possible scenario. So we shouldn't be cavalier about the potential loss of one of our layers of protection.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary does not reflect the actual severity of this condition, which, while not insignificant, is not cause to shut plants down permanently.
Not noted in the summary or article, the plants test their emergency diesel generators every month to ensure they are working. Plant trips happen, and sometimes when off-site power is not available (sometimes loss of off-site power is the cause). Someone I know who worked at the plant noted that there was always just a little bit of concern until the generators t
Re: (Score:2)
One of the few happy lessons from Fukushima is that defense-in-depth works -- at least to prevent mishaps from developing into the worst possible scenario.
Is this the Fukushima that's still emitting radioactive seawater? The Fukushima that's still building up tanks and tanks of more of the same?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I work in the nuclear industry, in the control room. My finger is literally on the keys,
There are six plants in the usa with precisely the same shitty cooling system as Fukushima. It doesn't matters whose fingers are on the keys, those plants are shit.
An Ad hom first post (Score:2)
An ad hom attack is not unexpected. As your frist post is a bit of a new low though.
With that many eyes on the lookout for good news perhaps the only reason they can't find any is because there is none.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are six plants in the usa with precisely the same shitty cooling system as Fukushima. It doesn't matters whose fingers are on the keys, those plants are shit.
They're the same model line, yes. But I'd dispute the use of the word 'precisely'. Can you state that their generators are in the same location? That, unlike Fukushima, they installed the hydrogen recombiners that the manufacturer of the plant had been recommending for over 20 years?
Are the flaws so inherent that the plant needs a total redesign to be 'safe'? Or is it a bit like Tesla's car, where after discovering a danger with specific types of road debris they simply installed a shield to mitigate th
Re: (Score:2)
When people have questions about tax law, they ask an accountant. They don't ask the clerk at the checkout stand of the local supermarket. Yet when it comes to nuclear power, people will accept the opinions of folks who are totally unqualified to have any sort of opinion other than hearsay. I spent over 10 years as a qualified reactor operator, with thousands of hours of panel time. I've got more time at the controls of a nuclear power plant t
Here's a super pro nuke story (Score:2)
Nuclear hasn't learned (Score:2)
You are nothing like the airline industry who actually is a learning industry. You've learned how to PR spin and do the absolute minimum you have to do. You do the same arrogant dismissal of people's concerns and treat them like they are stupid. Fukushima proved the Nuclear Industry learned nothing from Chernobyl except how to better cover evidence and ensure the flow of information is stifled.
I used to support nuclear power, I thought it would save the world and the more I learned and asked questions th
Re: (Score:2)
If Obama wanted to shut down the nukes how come there are 4 new reactors being built and a 5th completed right now?