AP IMPACT: US nuke regulators weaken safety rules

No, they allowed for the possibility of a 500-year flood. Name me one other industry that does that. Name me one other industry that engineers a nine-fold safety redundancy. And please, spare us the “But no other industry can wipe out all life in the known universe and unravel the space-time continuum!” crap. That isn’t going to happen.

Here is the response from the Nuclear Energy Institute to this hit piece:

June 20, 2011

Older Nuclear Plants Face Same Safety Checks as New Ones, Despite Impression Left by AP Story

A story from the Associated Press, “US Nuke Regulators Weaken Safety Rules,” claims that “accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety” at older U.S. nuclear power plants. In fact, industry actions and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory standards continue to ensure safe operations at all U.S. nuclear power plants. The U.S. regulatory approach features a clear dividing line between the industry and an independent regulator that has at least two inspectors at every plant site every day.
Below, we take a deeper look at the AP article and present the facts.

________________________________________

Myth:

“… Aging reactors have been allowed to run less safely to prolong
operations … .”

The Facts

U.S. commercial nuclear reactors no matter how old they are—including those up for license renewal—must demonstrate to the NRC that they will manage aging issues effectively, ensuring equipment functionality and plant safety.

U.S. nuclear power plants are subject to a rigorous program of NRC oversight, inspection, preventive and corrective maintenance, equipment replacement, and extensive equipment testing. These programs ensure nuclear plant equipment continues to meet safety standards, no matter how long the plant has been operating.

Because these sustained maintenance programs exist, the date that a nuclear plant starts operating is not a reliable indication of its age or condition.

Some nuclear plant components are replaced on fixed schedules, while others are used until they show wear and then are replaced. These aging management activities will continue for as long as the plant operates.

Plants constantly replace and repair equipment and components with moving parts, such as pumps and valves. Even massive multi-ton components like reactor vessel heads and steam generators are replaced when needed to maintain high levels of reliability. In 2009 alone, the nuclear energy industry invested approximately $6.5 billion in steam generators and reactor vessel heads, in equipment modifications necessary to uprate plants and in other capital projects.

________________________________________
Myth:

“… Despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years.”

The Facts

The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations maintains a database of operational issues in the nuclear energy industry and tracks and trends them. Every utility that operates a nuclear power plant has access to this information for review and corrective action as needed.
Established by the nuclear power industry in December 1979, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations is a not-for-profit organization headquartered in Atlanta. Its mission is to promote the highest levels of safety and reliability in the operation of commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S.

________________________________________
Myth:
“… [There are] rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety—and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States … .”

The Facts

Contrary to the speculation in the article, there has not been a single safety-significant event since 2002, according to NRC reports to Congress. The NRC annually reports to Congress the number of “abnormal occurrences” that have taken place at U.S. nuclear power plants. The agency defines an abnormal occurrence as an unscheduled incident or event that the NRC deems significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The total number of abnormal occurrences throughout the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the seven years spanning fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2009 (the 2010 report has not been issued) is zero.

NEI Rapid Response Team

________________________________________
NEI Rapid Response quickly reacts to activist and media misstatements about nuclear energy and sets the record straight about clean, reliable and affordable nuclear energy.

If you have any feedback on NEI Rapid Response, please email us at RapidResponse@nei.org. We look forward to your comments and will respond promptly. For past Rapid Responses, click here.
Nuclear Energy Institute - www.nei.org
1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006-3708 Tel: 202.739.8000

No, they allowed for the possibility of a 500-year flood. Name me one other industry that does that. Name me one other industry that engineers a nine-fold safety redundancy.

We are talking about the Nuclear Power Industry. Not the Bread Baking Industry. The fact that they need sand bags illustrates that they had not put in permanent barriers to protect the plant from known historic flood levels.

And please, spare us the “But no other industry can wipe out all life in the known universe and unravel the space-time continuum!” crap. That isn’t going to happen.

When you return to Planet Earth, please let us know.

So the US should not have demanded that Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant improve its flood defenses a year or two ago ?

But there are plenty of other industries out that that can cause more widespread harm if they come to grief. Ever heard of Deepwater Horizon? Confirmed fatalities, environmental damage over millions of square miles, far more than has ever been caused by a nuclear plant in this country. Ever heard of Love Canal? Hundreds of square miles of chemical pollution, harmful effects for generations. Ever heard of Bhopal? Chemical industry disaster. San Juan Ixhuatepec? Natural gas disaster that wiped out an entire town and incinerated somewhere between 600 and 800 people (final death toll never firmly established). How about the renewable energy disaster that occurred in Japan after the March earthquake? The Okura dam collapsed and wiped out a village of 1800 people. That's 1800 deaths caused by renewable energy (hydropower), zero for Fukushima.

They have barriers. The reactor containment is watertight. They have backups for backups for backups of diesel generators. They have nine-fold redundancy in backup power. That indicates planning ahead for a 500 year flood. What, is a factor of nine redundancy not enough for you? How much is enough? I think I know the answer you'd give (no matter how much you put in, it isn't adequate, because it's nuclear).

Sounds like you're the one living on another planet, or maybe under a rock somewhere.

I don’t. Maybe after giving folks a while to chime in with their guesses, you could give us the answer....

Back when commercial nuclear plants were first being licensed, the only thing comparable to them were the large coal-fired stations. These coal-burning plants had an amortization schedule of 40 years, which was thought to be a rough guess as to how long they would last. So, based on the amortization schedule for coal plants, the 40-year license for nuclear plants was established. It was not based on technical data, such as steel embrittlement, because as we know today that in itself indicates a much longer operable lifetime, probably closer to 60 or maybe 80 years. I know. I have analyzed the steel specimens from surveillnace capsules pulled from operating nuclear plants. The rate of embrittlement of the PV steel as a function of accumulated neutron fluence is quite a bit lower than originally anticipated. 40 years is actually a low estimate for useful life.

Now, before the FR anti-nuke Luddites start up with their crap ("Well...well...well, if it wasn't based on technical data, why couldn't it be more like 20 years, or 10 years?! Huh? Huh?! HUH?!"), let me say that this is exactly why surveillance programs were established for nuclear plant steel, using test specimens made from the original batch of steel used to fabricate the vessel itself. These specimens are encapsulated in special containers mounted inside the pressure vessel, so they receive the same neutron irradiation as the pressure vessel itself. The surveillance capsule also contains neutron dosimeter materials so the precise neutron fluence can be physically measured, along with thermal monitors so the maximum temperature experienced by the materials can be inferred. This allows derivation of the material strength of the steel, its ductility, susceptibility to cracking from longitudinal and lateral shear stresses, and the determination of operating curves for heatup and cooldown rates to avoid thermal shock.

The strength of the materials that make up the pressure boundary of the plant are precisely known throughout it's operating lifetime. There are no other comparable surveillance programs in any other industry. No one else does these kinds of things. Certainly not the aviation industry, whose products are routinely stressed in ways that often lead to catastrophic failure and loss of life. Definitely not the natural gas industry, whose infrastructure has failed catastrophically and killed hundreds of people. And for sure not the chemical industry, whose history is one of leaking containers and toxic releases that have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Yet the nuclear industry does all of these safety-related programs, research, engineering, and for its trouble it is vilified in the media and the blogopshere, while nary a word is said about the actual, confirmed fatalities among the public caused by everything else.

Well, thank you for that. I had no idea when I posted this thread that so much information would come out of it, but I’m glad it did.

For several years as a kid, including the time around the Three Mile Island incident, I lived in Lynchburg, VA, home of Babcock & Wilcox’ headquarters and naval nuclear fuel plant, and grew up around engineers. I remember the frustration some of them had at the misinformation that was so widespread about what they did.

Why?

Fort Calhoun is in the middle of a 500 year flood. The present system of aqua dams (they are not using sandbags) seems to work quite well

Dry on one side and flooded on the other

Do you think that Fort Calhoun bought these aqua dams at the last second, with all the flooding going on in ND/SD/NE? No, this is part of their flood defense, and they are prepared to take on another 10 feet of flooding.

They have installed these dams around every critical area. They have offsite power sources ready, if necessary, to keep the spent fuel pool cooling running. I have weekly communications with Fort Calhoun...they are even prepared to handle six simultaneous upstream dam bursts.