Dancing with the Devil

by: deciminyan

Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 11:05:00 AM EDT

One, Two, Three, Four: NRC now concerned about multiple reactors at same site

by: Hopeful

Fri May 13, 2011 at 10:00:00 AM EDT

the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledged that the agency's current regulations and disaster plans did not give enough consideration to two factors that had greatly contributed to the continuing Fukushima Daiichi crisis in Japan: simultaneous problems at more than one reactor at the same site and a natural disaster that disrupts roads, electricity and other infrastructure surrounding a plant.

I don't think there's anything to add to that except that it is now obvious that neglecting those factors is not only foolish but dangerous. Fukushima has certainly changed my opinions on the safety of nuclear power. We have three reactors at a single site, and as the NRC made clear in the public meeting I attended, it will issue a new site permit for a 4th reactor without considering the safety of the other three. I hope this policy changes soon. By the way, the NRC also revealed this week that emergency equipment at nearly a third of the nation's reactors had serious problems.

I am happy to note, however, that the Salem reactors got high grades in their regular annual NRC safety review.

More on that new nuclear reactor

by: Hopeful

Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 12:11:04 PM EDT

As I've said before, it's easy to see why local politicians are in favor in a county that has only 42,000 people age 18-64:

Plant designers will aim for a 60-year lifespan, with 4,000 people employed during a 5- to 7-year construction period, 600 workers hired full time to operate the site and another 1,000 needed during shutdowns for refueling.

It's even possible PSEG will decide to build two new reactors on the same site.

We've discussed a lot of this before at Blue Jersey, but this was new to me:

In a report about to be released by the NRC, researchers have concluded nuclear power plants are "dramatically" safer than long believed.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear power trade group, said the upcoming report, called the State of the Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA), could reshape emergency planning for reactors nationwide. One recent NEI comment filed with the NRC said the report's findings could justify dropping 75 percent of the land now in 10-mile evacuation zones, because there's little risk beyond four or five miles.

But Edwin Lyman, a senior staffer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the NRC report "extremely compromised" and said that the NRC has refused to release documents that explain assumptions used to shape the findings.

Obviously it's difficult to judge the credibilty of a report that isn't published yet, but frankly the recent records of the SEC and MMS make me nervous, as Eliot Spitzer wrote :

In both instances, the regulators accepted industry assertions about the reliability of their safety mechanisms while failing to acknowledge -- much less investigate -- the darker, more complex reality. In each crisis, we had the same story of a belief in the reporting done by corporations, and in each case, we had a failure to recognize the enormous potential for fraud and the lack of incentives these corporate entities have in ascertaining and measuring potential risks to the public. The regulators continued to believe the lies fed them by CEOs even when the lies had become absurd. Both times, the agencies charged with regulating ignored the advice of their own experts, neglected to enforce rules, and engaged in an alarmingly cozy relationship with the industry they were supposed to be monitoring.

So far, the Obama administration has failed to fully grapple with the weaknesses and corruption of the regulatory agencies meant to guard the public from harm.

Could the rot extend to the NRC? On the other hand, Professor Richard Muller in his book "Physics for Future Presidents" argues nuclear reactors are quite safe, and I think he is reliable. He doesn't think it's very likely that the reactor fuel could melt through the containment building, which is the position being taken by the NRC. The PSEG application apparently claims that there is only a 1 in quadtrillion chance (whatever that is) of such an accident.  (I can't help but remember that the economic collapse was made worse by the Wall Street geniuses who underestimated the likelihood of low probability "Black Swan" events?)  In any case, I repeat my recommendation that you should read the excellent article by reporter Jeff Montgomery. In my opinion it's an example of how the "present both sides" ideal of journalism can actually work well.  

It's official: PSEG files application for new nuclear reactor site

by: Hopeful

Tue May 25, 2010 at 06:45:19 PM EDT

PSEG Power and PSEG Nuclear today filed an Early Site Permit (ESP) application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as part of PSEG's ongoing efforts exploring the possibility of building an additional nuclear plant.

"This is an important first step in the regulatory process to determine if a new plant is viable," explained PSEG Power President Bill Levis. "Though it is not a commitment to build, it would determine that the location we have identified for a potential new plant is suitable from a safety, environmental and emergency planning standpoint."

This "fourth reactor" would be adjacent to the three existing ones.  Such applications are not lightly done:

A dedicated nuclear development team has spent the past two and a half years developing the ESP application that is approximately 4000 pages.

The News Journal has the reaction from the Sierra Club:

"Nuclear is a bad investment for New Jersey's ratepayers," Jeff Tittel, New Jersey Sierra Club director, said in a written statement. "Nuclear technology is too expensive, unsafe, and will undermine investment in clean energy sources and the creation of green jobs. It is not green if it glows! "

I understood from the public hearing that it may take up to two years for the site to be approved and I suspect site rejection is quite unlikely.  

Public hearing on new nuclear reactor

by: Hopeful

Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:20:39 PM EDT

The highlights in my opinion:

NRC launches special probe to investigate Oyster Creek

by: Jason Springer

Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 05:59:39 PM EDT

Samuel J. Collins, a regional administrator with the NRC, said in a statement the performance of humans and machines during the outage need to be looked into more closely.

"While the plant was safely removed from service during the event, several equipment issues arose during the shutdown that we believe bear closer examination," he said. "Through this special inspection, we intend to gain a better understanding of these issues, including the actions taken by plant operators in response."

Among those was an electrical component failing; an emergency diesel generator taking longer than expected to start; and problems involving an isolation condenser, a component used to help cool down the reactor during shutdowns.

David Benson, a plant spokesman, said the backup generator did not perform as expected.

"We are not satisfied with the performance of one of the two diesel generators," he said. "Our expectation is for the generator to start up in seven seconds; this generator took 80 seconds."

Shortly after it won the new license, the plant discovered some underground pipes had been leaking tritium, a weak, radioactive form of hydrogen. The pipes were dug up and replaced, and the plant says no tritium has left the site.

The NRC plans to issue a report on its findings within 45 days of the completion of the special inspection.

Fire shuts down Oyster Creek transformer

by: Jason Springer

Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 06:58:54 AM EST

Exelon Nuclear says the fire was in one of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant's two main transformers.

The company says the unit automatically shut down and there was no threat to the public. No one was injured.

Plant operators declared an unusual event at 10:11 p.m. Sunday. The company says the fire was extinguished 16 minutes later and the event ended at 11:37 p.m.

Oyster Creek still shut down

by: Jason Springer

Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:44:21 PM EST

The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station remains shut down following a weekend problem with one of its two main electrical transformers.

Just after 9 p.m. Friday, an electrical fault occurred in one of the transformers that converts Oyster Creek's output for use on the grid that serves the region.

That caused the plant to shut down automatically.

Oyster Creek is the oldest nuclear reactor in the country having opened in 1969.  It's license expires in April of 2009 and Excelon has been trying to renew their license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for another twenty years since 2005.

Hearings to be held on radioactive material

by: Jason Springer

Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 07:58:36 PM EST

The company is no longer in business, but they left a long term mark on the community: a 30-foot, low-grade radioactive rock pile.  Most of the radioactive material remaining at the site consists of the slag generated during production operations and refined dust.

Now rather than clean up the whole site, Shield Alloy wants to cap the radioactive waste right where it is, even though the location was declared a Superfund Site for cleanup in 1983.

Two hearings have been scheduled in early December by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)...

The first meeting will provide an overview of the review process for the decommissioning plan -- a proposal to cap the slag pile for 1,000 years.

The second meeting will let residents hear details of the NRC's environmental review for the plan and allow residents to comment on the possible environmental impacts.