Is Nuclear Oversight Getting More Lax to Accommodate Aging Reactors?

June 23rd, 2011 by Tom Schueneman

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)

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

About the Author

Tom Schueneman is an online publisher, editor, and freelance writer. He is the founder of GlobalWarmingisReal.com and the History Blog Project, as well as publisher and site director for the HippieMagazine.com. Tom also contributes to numerous environmental blogs, including TriplePundit, Ecopolitology, Sustainablog, and Planetsave. Tom's work has led him to Europe, Africa, Latin America, Canada, the South Pacific, and across the United States. His home base is San Francisco, California.

Anonymous

Color me skeptical.

Until Rossi turns his device over to a few independent university labs for testing I’m not betting he’s got the answer.

Remember, a lot of people were convinced that Uri Gellher was bending spoons with his mind until someone made the trick public.

You can fool some of the people some of the time even if they have good credentials….
Harry Rossignol

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.
- Anonymous
  
  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/2011/04/28/us-nuclear-plants-push-output
  
  Wish there was a law that required nuclear fan-boys to live next door to our oldest, most ready to fail reactors….
  - Anonymous
    
    And, let’s share this bit from the linked article. It’s such a hoot…
    
    “”It’s beyond the wit of mankind to identify all challenges to a
    nuclear plant,” said John Large, a former researcher for the British
    atomic energy agency who runs a consulting company in London
    specializing in nuclear safety.
    
    A case in point involved three uprated reactors in Illinois.
    
    In 2002, both reactors at the Quad Cities Nuclear Plant were
    restarted after having their capacity boosted by 17.8 percent. Pipes
    began to shake, and cracks formed in a steam separator, which removes
    moisture from the steam before it enters the turbines. In one case, a
    9-by-6-inch metal chunk broke off and disappeared.
    
    Similar problems were discovered at the Dresden Nuclear Power Plant,
    about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, which had undergone a 17 percent
    uprate.
    
    Broken parts were replaced, but the problem continued. Exelon Corp., which owns the plants, and the NRC were mystified.
    
    “The greatest concern is loose parts that you can’t find,” John
    Sieber, a nuclear engineer on the NRC advisory committee, said during a
    2004 meeting. “Are they in the bottom of the reactor vessel? … Is it
    floating around where it can damage internal parts of the core?”
    
    Push those puppies. Let’s see where the limit really is….
  - Anonymous
    
    lol, Bob, the sarcasm here really made me laugh out loud
    - Anonymous
      
      Sarcasm? What sarcasm?
      
      There’s no damn sarcasm in my post.
      
      America is falling behind. We’re in danger of no longer being Number One.
      
      First the Ruskies and now that little Japanese island have shown us up with their impressive reactor meltdowns. We took a shot at it and didn’t ruin any large tracts of land with our puny little Three Mile Island meltdown.
      
      Shame is upon us.
      
      We need a great big meltdown to regain pride in our great land. And the best way to get the disaster we need is to push our tired old reactors and to push them hard.
      
      Run them long after they’re held together by rust and hope.
      
      Crank up the output until something really important busts.
      
      That’s how we return America to the top of the heap.
      
      God Bless America….
      - Anonymous
        
        lol, you did it again