Slashdot Mirror


NRC Engineers Urge Shutdown of Nuclear Plants If Design Flaw Not Fixed (utilitydive.com)

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.

17 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:So what? by Socguy · · Score: 2

      No, a flaw was identified in 2012 that ALREADY forced 1 plant into an emergency situation and is also present in nearly all other nuclear reactors. This flaw HAS NOT been fixed, nor does the regulator have any interest in getting it fixed. The engineering group is now petitioning the NRC to force all plant operators to fix it or face closure. THAT is the story here.

    2. Re:So what? by HiThere · · Score: 4, 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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:So what? by Suomi-Poika · · 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.

  2. Oooo this is bad by TWX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In short, the catastrophic problems at both Chernobyl and at Fukushima Daiichi, despite different reactor designs, were coolant/steam problems. In Chernobyl's case steam voids within the graphite-moderated core caused the pressure to grow to the point it blew-off the upper biological shield, exposing the reactor core and blowing chunks of it out into the environment. In Fukishima Daiichi's case, as temperatures grew steam formed and also hydrogen and oxygen were separated-out from water, so steam and hydrogen explosions resulted.

    Keeping that reactor cooled and preventing the buildup of steam inside of the system should be top priority.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Oooo this is bad by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Chernobyl had nothing to do with a coolant problem (unless you mean in generic terms that it's coolant system wasn't designed to handle a power excursion in excess of 10 times its rated capacity). While steam voids caused reactor #4 to become extremely unstable, it was the additional graphite moderator located on the bottom of the control rods when they finally decided to shut things down, that caused the reactor to go prompt critical. It went from a few MW of power to 30GW in a fraction of a second. This is what blew the reactor apart, and no coolant system would have made a difference

    2. Re:Oooo this is bad by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  3. Re:Have they thought this through? by Etherwalk · · 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 our power supplies and the world is just getting hotter.

  4. Re:Have they thought this through? by hey! · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Re: Have they thought this through? by Coren22 · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  6. And plug the hole in the ceiling by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

    So the bird poop don't get in...

  7. mdsolar by Prune · · Score: 4, Informative

    As soon as I saw the word "nuclear" in the subject, I knew who the submitter was.

    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...

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  8. Re:Have they thought this through? by Socguy · · Score: 2

    ...the land around it is unusable for a while... LOL, I guess if you consider several generations 'a while'.

  9. Re: Have they thought this through? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. The risk is failure of the cooling systems.

    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 standard for sensitive equipment. In the event of a phase loss or phase with low voltage, all 3 phases are tripped, cutting all power. A backup power supply can then be selected.

  10. Unfixed for two weeks and they didn't notice... by cirby · · 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.

  11. Excellent! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, 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.

  12. Re: Have they thought this through? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some risks aren't work taking. I'm not a nuclear engineer, and can't speak directly to the issue here. However, if a nuclear engineer intimate with the details speaks up in such a manner, and especially if a group of them do, you'd damn well better pay attention. Engineers don't use hyperbole. If they say this is a problem that merits shutting down reactors it does.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.