Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire: Is Nuclear Oversight Getting More Lax to Accommodate Aging Reactors? CleanTechnica

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Is Nuclear Oversight Getting More Lax to Accommodate Aging Reactors? CleanTechnica

June 23, 2011 in Nuclear

Federal regulators ease standards to keep reactors in compliance

Zach Shahan just published a great piece on Planetsave.com about a recent AP investigation on federal oversight and the nuclear power industry. The report reveals how, instead of providing oversight, federal regulators act more like close business partners with nuclear power operators to keep aging reactors online and within federal standards. How? By repeatedly easing those standards.
The investigation shows that officials from the U.S. Regulatory Commission have consistently judged earlier standards as “too strict,” advocating that reduced safety margins can be achieved “without peril”.
The result is valves allowed to leak at a rate up to 200 times more than the original standard, cracked tubing through which radioactive steam flows, worn parts left in operation, and many other age-related patterns of deterioration.
According to NRC records obtained by AP, it goes something like this:

Reactor parts fail or fall out of regulatory compliance.
Research is commissioned and studies are conducted by both industry and government. All agree the rules are “unnecessarily conservative.”
The rules are eased and reactors are once again in compliance.

But as most nuclear plants in the US near the end of their expected lifespan, the inevitable symptoms of age will continue to eat away at the safety margin.
Even if we are to put our faith in the NRC’s ability to effectively regulate the nuclear industry, some questions seem prudent:

At what point do industry regulators draw the line and ease regulations no further?
Why are the original standards consistently too strict?
Are we learning the lessons we should from the Fukushima tragedy?
Who is overseeing the overseers?

To that last question, the answer must be you and me.
Related articles

Radioactive leaks found at 75% of US nuke sites (cbsnews.com)
U.S. Nuclear Regulator Faces Fresh Scrutiny for Bending Safety Standards (propublica.org)
Nuclear Power Oversight Poor In Both Japan & United States, AP & IAEA Reports Show (treehugger.com)
Electrical Fire Knocks Out Spent Fuel Cooling Pool at Nebraska Nuclear Plant (planetsave.com)

2 comments

Tags:

Advertise on this site

Add New Comment

Optional: Login below.

Showing 2 comments

Sort by

Harry Rossignol

57 minutes ago

Without knowing how many thermal cycles and other wear related data the a given plant actually has gone thru compared to the original 'projected' number of cycles it's awfully hard to make a statement as to whether or not the 'original' standard was too lax or too strict.

The major wear items on thermal plants(coal,gas,nuclear) tend to be related to how many thermal(on/off) cycles.

Just like how often many service items on your car need to be inspected/replaced depends on whether the car is being used as a taxi, or towing or predominately highway cruising.

Obviously, with 30 years of data on how a specific nuclear plant was used judgements as to what the appropriate service and replacement rates should be based on 'actual' operating experience rather then anticipated.

Flag

Bob_Wallace

6 minutes ago in reply to Harry Rossignol

Good point you make Harry. We just won't know when these plants will fail until we push a few until the do.

And just to satisfy our curiosity a bit sooner how about we up the output on these old corroded plants? We could reach bang-dome even quicker and thus learn what the limit really is.

Oh, wait, we've already done that. We've uprated a number of reactors, as much as 20% more than their designed output. That ought to give us the "thermal cycles and other wear related data" we need...

"In an uprated reactor, more neutrons bombard the core, increasing
stress on its steel shell. Core temperatures are higher, lengthening the
time to cool it during a shutdown. Water and steam flow at higher
pressures, increasing corrosion of pipes, valves and other parts.

"This trend is, in principle, detrimental to the stability
characteristics of the reactor, inasmuch as it increases the probability
of instability events and increases the severity of such events, if
they were to occur," the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, which
is mandated by Congress to advise the NRC, has warned."

http://ns.gazettenet.com/2011/...

Wish there was a law that required nuclear fan-boys to live next door to our oldest, most ready to fail reactors....

Flag