Inspectors Warn Faulty Valves In New-Generation EPR Nuclear Reactor Pose Meltdown Risk

Bruce66423 writes: Valves for the new generation of French reactors being built now have raised substantial safety concerns on top of the existing issues about the quality of the steel used for the containment vessel. Similar to the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, France’s nuclear safety watchdog found “multiple” malfunctioning valves in the Flamanville EPR that could cause its meltdown. The Telegraph reports: "The watchdog reportedly cited 'multiple failure modes' that could have 'grave consequences' on the safety relief valves, which play a key role in regulating pressure in the reactor. Owned by state-controlled French utilities giant EDF, Flamanville lies close to the British Channel Islands and about 150 miles from the southern English coast. Designed to be the safest reactors in the world and among the most energy-efficient, the €9 billion (£6.5 billion) EPR has suffered huge delays in models under construction in France, Finland and China. It is now due to enter service in 2017, five years later than originally planned."

Comments

Hack piece

[Mr D from 63]

Valves don't cause meltdowns. Multiple faulty valves could inhibit the mitigation of an even that could lead to a meltdown.

In this case, valves did not pass the required tests so they can't be used in the plant when it is built. The testing process is there for a purpose.

Re:Hack piece

[Zalbik]

It shows that the engineers designing and building these reactors are still unable to correctly predict and specify the needed hardware for it to be safe

How do you figure? The valves are faulty. Not designed incorrectly, but actually malfunctioning.

This indicates possible errors in the manufacturing/supply process. It says nothing about the design.

have to rely on checks catching these faults.

Like every other manufacturing process EVER.

Surprisingly, humans aren't perfect. Inspections are done specifically to ensure that mistakes are caught.

As far as I can tell, the process is working correctly...nothing to see here.

Re:Typical Frogs

[monkeyzoo]

Flamanville lies close to the British Channel Islands and about 150 miles from the southern English coast

I'm curious why the article says this at all. They could just as accurately have said: Flamanville lies ZERO miles from the French coast (ha ha) and is equidistant from Paris and London. That seems the more relevant information in terms of potential catastrophic impact on population centers.

Seems like the author is maybe British and fear-mongering for the local audience?

Re:Isn't that the point of inspections?

[Maury Markowitz]

> it's good that the problem is identified and fixed.

With the project already billions over budget and years behind schedule, events like this hardly inspire confidence that there aren't more of these gotchas in the pipeline.

You probably wouldn't get on a plane these guys designed, but a nuclear reactor, that's just something to ignore with the wave of a hand?

Examine your assumptions.

Re:Typical Frogs

[serviscope_minor]

Powerstations are usually placed near sources of cooling water, either large rivers or the sea. Such geographical features are also often borders. So, are they clustered closer than one would expect to borders given the cooling requirements?