Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Legislation Proposed For Nuclear Safety

Posted by kdawson on from the did-you-say-springfield-vermont dept.

mdsolar writes "Recent problems at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant have spurred Congresspeople from Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire to introduce legislation that would allow State governors to request independent safety reviews of nuclear power plants. The reviews would exclude NRC employees who usually work on that plant and include non-NRC reviewers. This review model is based on one that found problems at Maine Yankee before it closed. Problems at Vermont Yankee have included a cooling tower collapse, a SCRAM caused by an un-greased valve, and failure of a safety system during the SCRAM. The plant is coming off of heightened review after shipping nuclear material with insufficient shielding. The plant's application for a 20 year license extension is also currently under review."

9 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Entergy safety culture by mdsolar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Entergy, the company that has been buying up old reactors to try to run them harder as they reach then end of their design lifetimes gets quite a few safety related criticisms. They use solo guards at security posts so it is not too surprising that one was found asleep at Indian Point last month: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/27/ap405783 6.html. They were recently reprimanded for for a worker taking a nap at the Pilgrim Reactor as well. The Simpsons is reality based television.

    They also try to cut costs by refueling quickly. They boast of 90% up-times because of their quick refueling, but with reduced staff, how can they manage to both refuel and to scheduled maintenance, or avoid deferring maintenance that cannot fit within the shortened down time window? In the present case they seem to even be willing to run at reduced power rather than to promptly address the broken cooling tower. Was the ungreased bearing that caused their SCRAM on a list that just got skipped to get more up time? They give the impression that controlling costs it their primary function. Installing required warning sirens at both Indian Point http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl e?AID=/20070830/NEWS01/708300442/1025/NEWS09 and Vermont Yankee http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_6835609 has been lagging. In Vermont they want Boy Scouts to distribute warning radios rather than doing it themselves.

    Nuclear power does have a safety culture, using systems like lessons-learned to attempt to improve safety. But, pushing aging reactors past their design capacity or refueling faster with fewer people seem like lessons learned just waiting to happen. Shoestring methods lack the kind of redundancy that provides for safety margins.
    --
    Rent solar power for you home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

  2. Vermont and renewables by mdsolar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Vermont limits the amount of net metering in the state no more than 1% of peak capacity http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive 2.cfm?Incentive_Code=VT02R&state=VT&CurrentPageID= 1&RE=1&EE=1, while at the same time participating in the Northeast regional climate agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps the issues arising at Vermont Yankee will prompt Vermont to follow New Jersey and remove the cap, or at least follow Maryland and California and raise it.
    --
    Rent solar power for you home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

  3. It's just capitalism at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But, pushing aging reactors past their design capacity or refueling faster with fewer people seem like lessons learned just waiting to happen.

    That's just capitalism at work. They're trying to extract the greatest value for the least amount of input. Funnily enough, we end up with the same situation as witnessed in a certain communist regime a couple of decades ago: unsafe nuclear powerplants are pushed past their limits by untrained and inexperienced staff.

    For all the anti-communist sentiment we get from many capitalists, those capitalists seem very much inclined to follow the same path as their communist enemies. Let's hope that the results here are not the same as they were in the USSR in 1986.

    1. Re:It's just capitalism at work. by dattaway · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Capitalism is great, but if there's no review or auditing, they are going to give nuclear a very bad long term image. I'd rather live next to a nuke plant than a coal plant. They need to respect energy sources more than the almighty buck if nuclear is going to have a future.

      Meltdowns are expensive and its likely our tax paid EPA Superfund will pick it up rather than their insurance. The greed needs to stop and they will run a clean shop.

    2. Re:It's just capitalism at work. by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And any review or auditing WILL be the result of governmental regulation. It's naive to think that any company will regulate itself when it can save money by not doing so. Since capitalism is about spending as little as possible to get the greatest output, these two ideas go against the very grain of each other. Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but like everything in the world, it cannot stand entirely on its own.

      That is why I support both some regulations and a strong court system. With good courts those living near these plants would be able to sue the owners and operators of the plants, and win thereby receiving compensation. However because of laws like the Price-Anderson Act they can't be. The federal government has subsidized the nuclear power industry by shielding them lawsuits. With regulations there is no true capitalism, but are needed. However laws like this are bad.

      Falcon
      --
      Should there be a Law?
  4. Old reactors by zeromorph · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can't say how it is in the US but in Europe old reactors (that have been wriiten off) are very profitable - much more than newer ones. Since old reactors are more profitable but tend to be less secure, this is clearly a case were legislation has to intervene, it's just to dangerous.

    Extern, independent reviews in such critical businesses cannot be wrong anyway.

    --
    "Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
  5. Refueling Efficiency by tjstork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wouldn't necessarily say that you need to have a mountain of people to refuel a reactor quickly. A lot of companies do refueling simulations apriori and can set up a pretty good refueling script without the need for as many drones.

    And, honestly, the need for safety at a nuclear power plant is so overstated that you can tend to drone it out and thus ignore those things that really do need to be safe. For example, when a company installed guard towers at its nuclear plants, the biggest dispute was that neither union or management could agree on the steps. It's just absurd, and to some extent, really, the union used the steps on the guard tower as a negotiating plank to get more money, more than any concern for safety or the obvious admonition - hang on to the rails.

    --
    This is my sig.
  6. I like solar, too, but eough of the spam by ishmalius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know it's a slow Sunday, but please, enough of the sales pitch.

    I for one am hoping that US nuclear operators will begin investing in newer technology, like the pebble-bed reactor. This one is an old idea, but recently implemented. It is inherently safer than rods & dampers, and is unable to go into meltdown. And the reactors can be smaller and can be located closer to the power-users for efficiency and economy.

  7. IAEA by BlueParrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, now call me naive here, but why not just do what everyone else does when they have trouble like this and ask the IAEA to inspect their power plants? This is what Sweden did after the incident at Forsmark, it's what Japan did after the leaks associated with the recent earthquake, and I believe quite a few other countries have done so as well. As an extra bonus, getting the thumb down from IAEA would be rather embarrassing for the NRC, so chances are it would make them actually do their job... Really, the US pays for a huge portion of the UN's budget, so why not actually use its services...