[HN Gopher] Feds find "substantial'' safety issue at SC nuclear ...
___________________________________________________________________
Feds find "substantial'' safety issue at SC nuclear plant
Author : DocFeind
Score : 92 points
Date : 2023-10-09 17:49 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thestate.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thestate.com)
| fluxem wrote:
| Good news is that nuclear energy is safe and has zero long
| lasting ecological effects! Also management and governments are
| always competent. Otherwise, we would be in big, big trouble
| lukev wrote:
| This is the system working as intended... it's the problems
| that don't get caught you need to worry about...
| dylan604 wrote:
| how do _you_ explain the nuclear navy 's safety record?
| goodpoint wrote:
| The same organization that secretly dumped nuclear waste into
| the ocean? You think they would tell you if they had
| accidents?
| alexjplant wrote:
| Tangentially related: it's public knowledge that in the
| late 60s the US Army basically dropped a bunch of chemical
| weapons off of a pier on the Jersey Shore [1]. OK, so maybe
| that's an attempt at humor by hyperbole on my part, but it
| isn't far from the truth - they apparently determined that
| scuttling a ship filled with VX in the Atlantic is the
| optimal way to dispose of it.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)#Worldwid
| e_sto...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Our history is rich with stories. In December 1773, a
| bunch of colonists tried to drug a the fish in the Boston
| Harbor with a bunch of tea.
| fluxem wrote:
| Nuclear subs and air carriers are part of deterrence
| strategy. So, most reports will be classified, unlike for
| nuclear plants. Never the less, we know about numerous
| accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nucle
| ar_submari...
|
| Also, let's not forget about Hanford site, which was part of
| the US nuclear program
| dylan604 wrote:
| not one of those incidents were due to reactor failure.
| running a reactor is complicated. operating a submarine at
| depths is also complicated. combining them doesn't mean
| either one gets less complicated. a failure of some
| complicated part of the submarine does not mean the power
| source failed. assuming they do with flippant "but subs
| have sunk" comments is just disingenuous at best.
| fluxem wrote:
| Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submar
| ine#Reactor_acci...
| dylan604 wrote:
| okay. yes, you win the internet of pedants. i guess its
| my fault for not saying US nuclear navy
|
| I'm not really concerned with the events of the
| Soviet/Russian navy, as they are not the ones regulating
| anything that concerns me.
| Animats wrote:
| Found the NRC inspection reports leading up to this.[1]
|
| _Significance: P (pending)_
|
| _Jun 30, 2023_
|
| _Identified By: SR_
|
| _Item Type: AV Apparent Violation (AV)_
|
| _Failure to Identify and Correct a Condition Adverse to Quality
| Associated with the EDG Fuel Oil System_
|
| _A self-revealed finding with significance to be determined
| (Pending) and associated AV of Title of the Code of Federal
| Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI,
| "Corrective Action," was identified when the licensee failed to
| identify and correct a condition adverse to quality for the EDG
| fuel oil system that left the system vulnerable to premature
| piping cracks and eventually resulted in the failure of the 'A'
| EDG during testing on November 2, 2022. Specifically, inspectors
| determined that, based on the failure history of the EDGs and the
| licensee's documented conclusions that attributed pipe cracks to
| prior maintenance events, the licensee had sufficient information
| to identify the existence of a condition adverse to quality
| related to the design of the EDG fuel oil system. This condition
| caused threaded fuel oil piping connections to be vulnerable to
| maintenance activities that over torqued, strained, or impacted
| the piping. Despite the challenge to maintain leak-tight
| connections and repeat occurrences of cracked piping, no
| significant changes were made to maintenance practices,
| procedures or system design, and the licensee continued to
| reactively monitor for leakage even after vulnerabilities were
| identified._
|
| Previous report:
|
| _Significance: W (white)_
|
| _Mar 31, 2022_
|
| _Identified By: NRCI_
|
| _Item Type: NOV Notice of Violation (NOV)_
|
| _Failure to Correct Condition Adverse to Quality Resulting in
| Inoperable Emergency Diesel Generator_
|
| _An NRC-identified apparent violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
| Criterion XVI, was identified for the licensee failing to correct
| a condition adverse to quality resulting in the inoperability of
| the 'B' emergency diesel generator (EDG). Specifically, there
| were indications of erratic governor performance following the
| January 2022 maintenance package that were identified during
| testing January 16, 2022. The governor performance was also
| erratic during the February 9, 2022, surveillance test, after
| which the licensee declared the EDG inoperable. As a result of
| this condition, the 'B' EDG was inoperable for a time in excess
| of its technical specification (TS) allowed outage time._
|
| The scale is Green, White, Yellow, Red. Normal is green. This
| problem reached White in March 2022, and the June 2023 problem
| shows as Pending, which means the NRC had not assigned a color
| level yet. Now they have escalated that to Yellow, according to
| the press coverage. Which is a good move, considering that
| troubles have been observed in both the A and B emergency
| generator systems. Anyone know if they have more than two
| emergency generators? Two is kind of low.
|
| [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2322/ML23223A006.pdf
| omgJustTest wrote:
| Nuclear engineer here:
|
| These plants need on-site diesel generators to provide site-power
| in case of loss of off-site power (grid failure). Here the
| operator had leaks in fuel lines that fed both the A and B
| generators. These are the only generators of on-site emergency
| power.
|
| An operating reactor needs approximately 2-5 days to cool due to
| build-up of radioactive decay products in the core, which
| continue to generate heat even after the reactor has been fully
| shutdown (in the case of an emergency, a sudden shutdown of the
| reactor is called a SCRAM).
|
| On-site power serves the primary purpose of driving core-
| recirculating coolant loops to control the core temperature.
| Chief metrics in reactor safety generally relate back to core-
| damage-frequency (CDF), because when one damages the fuel-casing
| or core, this is the most-likely precursor to releasing
| radioactivity. CDF determinations are almost directly linked to
| loss-of-coolant-accidents (LOCAs) which imply that one can no
| longer cool the nuclear fuel core or elements.
|
| Total station blackout, which is a result of loss of off-site and
| on-site power, combined with a SCRAM is essentially the scenarios
| that led to Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters. The NRC will not
| treat this lightly.
| nightpool wrote:
| The problems being related to the backup generators make me think
| about the current Freefall arc (written by a nuclear engineer,
| even), which focuses in part on a unethical space station manager
| who is skimping on maintenance regimes to create a temporary
| life-support failure (requiring the use of backup generators)
| that would trigger the automatic reallocation of unused
| manufacturing robots from a nearby in-orbit factory to bolster
| his workforce and lower his labor costs (storyline starting
| around ... here http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3800/fc03702.htm,
| although prior to that are a few fun strips about procurement
| bureaucracy)
| hanniabu wrote:
| This is why many, including myself, are against nuclear power.
|
| They have an engineered lifespan and things start falling apart
| and becoming dangerous when you exceed that. Many should never
| have been extended. They've had to change safety tests and
| infrastructure tests so the order plans would pass inspection.
|
| This has always been my concern with nuclear. Yes we can make it
| safe, but the human greed factor is always the weak point.
| Regulations weakened, automated systems bypassed, skimping on
| design decisions, etc.
|
| This first link makes me absolutely furious. There's too much to
| quote from here, but here's just one excerpt. The post has
| numerous examples of very concerning issues.
|
| > When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed -- up to 20 times
| the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive
| leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes
| was devised, so plants could meet standards.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859
|
| > The proposal comes as most of the nation's nuclear power
| plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are
| reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating
| licenses. Many plant operators have sought licenses to extend the
| operating life of their plants past the original deadlines, even
| as experts have warned that aging plants come with heightened
| concerns about safety.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspe...
|
| > The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on
| safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police
| themselves. The NRC "is listening" to this advice, the Associated
| Press reported last month. "Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy
| lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or
| reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting
| this week that she was 'open to self-assessments' by nuclear
| plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by
| operators take the place of some NRC inspections."
|
| https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-tru...
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Unfortunate you're downvoted, the greed and incompetence is
| basically what made Fukushima happen. Not the Tsunami alone
| hanniabu wrote:
| People have difficulty facing reality when it doesn't fit
| their world view, it is what it is
| [deleted]
| BeastMachine wrote:
| I've always wondered if being forced to live near the plants
| would change regulators minds. There are plants throughout the
| country, so if you want any say in safety regulations you'd
| have to live within 1km of the start of the safety zone.
| wpm wrote:
| Probably wouldn't change anything because the regulators
| likely actually understand nuclear power plants and what the
| particular failures mean for the overall safety of a plant,
| at least far better than the average lay person does.
| kube-system wrote:
| Nuclear power can quickly hurt people or the environment if
| mistakes happen.
|
| Others types of power plants slowly hurt people or the
| environment even if mistakes don't happen.
| pfdietz wrote:
| On the subject of "hurting people"...
|
| One can get a handle on the magnitude of this issue by
| looking at the cost per person killed. Typically, policy
| decisions on this are based on the statistical value of a
| human life, which is somewhere around $9M/life.
|
| If you use that value, then the extra "life value cost" from
| renewables is orders of magnitude below their direct cost. So
| it makes no sense to use a more expensive energy source than
| renewables just because you've been convinced renewables are
| too unsafe.
| kube-system wrote:
| > So it makes no sense to use a more expensive energy
| source than renewables just because you've been convinced
| renewables are too unsafe.
|
| I agree. But it does make sense to use nuclear for other
| practical reasons. It works well for fulfilling base load.
| Renewables are great but transmission and storage is a
| bitch for those which are not dispatchable.
|
| Where nuclear shines is in replacing other base loads, like
| coal.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Nuclear is so much more expensive than renewables that
| even with issues of storage and transmission, nuclear
| still loses at base load. This is especially the case
| when one projects costs into the future, with nuclear
| having to compete against the renewable and storage
| technologies of 10, 20, 30 years hence.
| outworlder wrote:
| > This is why many, including myself, are against nuclear
| power.
|
| And this stance would be perfectly fine if the alternatives
| were better. If we are firing up coal plants to make up for not
| building nuclear plants, we are much worse than even a
| _leaking_ nuclear power plant. Coal plants, depending on where
| their coal comes from, can't even be built near nuclear as they
| would set off radiation alarms.
|
| Coal emissions are particularly harmful and cause lots of
| deaths worldwide. Natural gas are much less so, but still not
| great.
|
| We need to remove the older nuclear power plants and replace
| them, for baseline power, with newer designs. They are far
| safer and will not meltdown no matter what fails. Newer reactor
| designs are usually not self-sustaining and require active
| management to keep them going (as opposed to intervening to
| _stop_ them).
|
| The answer seems to be renewables everywhere, and newer
| reactors to keep up with baseline demand.
|
| > The proposal comes as most of the nation's nuclear power
| plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s,
| are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating
| licenses.
|
| That is indeed the main problem. We have solved a lot of issues
| in half a century.
| Kon5ole wrote:
| >And this stance would be perfectly fine if the alternatives
| were better.
|
| I believe we passed the point where solar with storage is
| better. It's certainly faster and easier to deploy, but now
| it's apparently also cheaper per produced Wh than nuclear
| even accounting for a mere 30% efficiency from the storage
| "detour".
|
| Solar has kept falling in price this year as well, while
| nuclear is always revealed to be more expensive every time a
| new study is made.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| It's much cheaper, faster, and less risky (financially) to
| replace them with renewables. It's a bit of an academic
| exercise anyway at this point because it just takes a decade
| plus to plan any new nuclear. That's based on a sample of
| next to nothing because there just isn't a whole lot of
| nuclear coming online at all. Nor is there a whole lot of
| capacity stuck in the planning or construction pipeline. And
| what little does come online does so late, over budget, etc.
| So those handful of pitiful plants are not a great reference
| from the point of view of convincing people to do some more.
| Renewables on the other hand are coming online by the tens of
| gw every year. There are still learning effects, and prices
| are still coming down further.
|
| As for baseload (which I assume is what you are referring to
| here), that seems to be an elusive concept that is just never
| expressed in twh. Because as soon as you do that, you can
| start imagining all sorts of alternative and much cheaper,
| practical, less hand wavy, and faster ways of getting that
| capacity in place than building actual nuclear plants at
| scale.
|
| I mean, how many nuclear plants do we actually need? 2, 5,
| 200? At least put a number on it. Do we need any plants at
| all? Nobody seems to know this or want to talk about this in
| any level of detail that you could use to actually start
| planning some budgets for this. It's just presumed lazily
| that we need unspecified (typically to the extent of
| committing nontrivial percentages of the world's GDP to this)
| amounts of it to ensure our anxiety levels stay within
| acceptable range. It's completely irrational at this point.
|
| Meanwhile, the amount of wind and solar coming online keeps
| beating expectations and battery production is ramping up
| from gwh scale to twh scale per year. It's the only practical
| alternative that exists to nuclear right now. And it's being
| done at a ridiculous scale because it's an order of magnitude
| or two cheaper (and dropping further). To make a dent into
| that, you need a lot of nuclear plants at this point for it
| to even matter and at a much lower cost than most nuclear
| proponents seem willing to entertain. I don't see that
| happening really. Doubling or quadrupling the amount of
| renewables + battery seems much easier, doable, and cheaper
| at this point. Especially if it needs to be done in a timely
| fashion.
| kogus wrote:
| The V.C. Sumner site has been a multi-decade slow motion
| financial and management catastrophe on many fronts[1][2][3]. It
| does not surprise me that the rot that apparently existed (and
| maybe still exists) at the top has filtered down into operational
| and maintenance issues.
|
| One lesson for me is that excellence is a symptom of a healthy
| organization, not the other way around.
|
| [1] https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-
| summer-...
|
| [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-carolina-utility-
| agrees-t...
|
| [3] https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-
| new...
| very_good_man wrote:
| [flagged]
| dale_glass wrote:
| In what way?
|
| Stuff like backup generators are not just for show. They're
| supposed to work properly in an emergency. I fully accept that
| nuclear can be a very safe technology. This is only so when the
| rules are followed and the backup plans actually work, though.
|
| But nuclear is dead anyway, due to being economically and
| politically non-competitive.
| pydry wrote:
| It's competitive politically. Civilian nuclear power shares a
| lot of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, subs &
| aircraft carriers:
|
| https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-
| reports/is...
|
| For countries that are facing an awkward geopolitical threat
| (e.g. Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Iran), it can help ensure
| that you're not _too_ far off creating a bomb.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| There is a _long_ way from commercial nuclear power to
| nuclear weaponry, other countries notice you trying to get
| from one to the other, and that puts a target on your back.
|
| Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power
| generation and it _checks notes_ was one of the reasons
| Russia invaded them?
| pydry wrote:
| >There is a long way from commercial nuclear power to
| nuclear weaponry
|
| Tell it to the IAEA and the United States when they came
| down on Iran like a ton of bricks.
|
| >Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power
| generation
|
| Yes, all built by the Soviet Union. They had no ability
| to construct their own once it collapsed. The Soviet
| Union was, of course, not just a nuclear power but the
| world's _biggest_ nuclear power. They had good reason to
| want to share the gargantuan costs of maintaining the
| world 's biggest nuclear military.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That may have something to do with Iran's public vow to
| want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. One
| practical way of doing this would be to drop a nuke or
| two and I wouldn't put it past Iran to do just that.
|
| One of the more realistic scenarios on how you could jump
| start a massive war would be for Pakistan to 'donate' a
| couple of nukes to Iran who would then use them on
| Israel.
| dale_glass wrote:
| In some countries, maybe. Doubtful in others.
|
| Eg, in the US it's highly likely that if one party tried to
| do a mass buildup of nuclear, the next one would do its
| best to sabotage it. The one deciding to build would not
| see the plants being finished, and would likely see the
| project defunded or sabotaged in some way.
|
| For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors,
| unrelated to whatever needs the population at large might
| have.
| pydry wrote:
| The only thing that is sabotaging nuclear power in the US
| is cost. It has been given an economic leg up that most
| industries could never even _dream_ of. It 's just _so_
| expensive that that often isn 't enough to make it
| viable.
|
| That is the reason for its (quite successful) attempts to
| brand itself as the New Green Jesus.
|
| >For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors
|
| Yes, the military does have its own reactors. You are
| quite correct in this one specific fact.
|
| There's a revolving door between the military and the
| private sector for nuclear engineers and the industrial
| infrastructure they both rely upon is shared. The parts
| required to construct nuclear reactors are quite
| specific, you see, and you need specialized industry to
| provide it.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| It's dead because it's not economically viable.
|
| _It never was._
|
| It's been enormously subsidized by the military's interest in
| nuclear propulsion and weaponry for well over half a century,
| and it has only gotten more expensive.
|
| Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost.
|
| Solar and wind are far cheaper, more easily distributed which
| makes them more resilient, have simpler construction,
| installation, maintenance, and repair chains, and none of the
| geopolitical and security headaches.
|
| The last hurdle is better long distance distribution (HVDC)
| to be able to better move power around and deploying more
| energy storage at all levels - grid, microgrid, and home.
| wpm wrote:
| >Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost.
|
| Which famously, received no subsidies at all.
| cycomanic wrote:
| In comparison to nuclear, very little in fact. That said
| the combined nuclear/renewables subsidies pale in
| comparison to subsidies received by fossil fuels.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Moreover, subsidies have an economic argument for certain
| technologies. Specifically, if the technology has good
| experience effects, current deployment causes future
| costs to decline, a positive externality. So it makes
| sense to subsidize technologies that have good experience
| effects.
|
| Renewables have shown strong and sustained experience
| effects. Nuclear has not. So it would make sense to
| subsidize renewables more than nuclear.
| jart wrote:
| They're also such a blight on landscapes. I don't want to
| think about where my power comes from, any more than
| people want to think about where their meat comes from.
| dale_glass wrote:
| What, renewables? I don't see it. Every generation system
| is visible.
|
| Solar and wind are always cool to see. Nuclear is kind of
| boring. Coal is just ugly.
| willcipriano wrote:
| The economics are due to the politics. The current crop of
| politicians just love coal.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Due to politics, in the sense of not allowing the nuclear
| industry to build whatever it damned well wants and subject
| society to learning-by-meltdown is the result of politics.
| willcipriano wrote:
| If you buy the global warming is going to kill us all
| theory, that appears to have been a grave error.
| alerighi wrote:
| First, it doesn't say that the backup generator did not work.
| An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function. It's
| something to pay attention and repair, but not something
| critical. If your car has an oil leak you keep driving it and
| repair it when you have time to do so.
|
| Second, the diesel generator is just one of many backup
| systems. To use it you have to have the (at least) two
| independent connections with the grid fail. Even if it does,
| you don't have one generator, but more than one. Even if the
| generator fails, passive system will cool down the reactor
| for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile generator on a
| truck to arrive and be connected, without any damage.
|
| There were only one case where generators and all external
| power supplies had failed, that is of course Fukushima. Even
| in that context, if the passive systems where not damaged by
| the tzunami, there wouldn't have been any release of
| radioactivity. And even in that context, considering that the
| containment had design flaws, the impact on the environment
| wasn't that huge.
|
| That is, nuclear power plants have multiple systems that can
| fail, as a complex machine. The fact that one system fails or
| has some issue doesn't necessary mean that the safety of the
| whole power plant is compromised.
| cycomanic wrote:
| I sure hope you don't make safety critical decisions. If
| you look at the history of failures in modern complex
| systems you almost always see that it happens as a series
| of unlikely events (or events that someone deemed
| impossible), that let to catastrophic failure.
|
| That's the whole point of multiple safety mechanisms, have
| backups in case one fails. If you start removing the backup
| mechanisms (e.g. through improper maintanance like it is
| the case here) you reduce the overall safety of the system.
| Does that mean certain catastrophic failure in case the
| system is needed? Probably not, but it increases the
| likelyhood of a chain of events that lead to it.
|
| The main news here is not that they had cracks in the
| pipes, the main news is that over the last 20 odd years the
| operator never bothered to do a proper fix instead opting
| for the (likely cheaper) quick fix.
| dale_glass wrote:
| > An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function.
|
| If oil runs out, then the generator will very much stop
| functioning, in an ugly and hard to fix manner. Something
| you very much don't want in an emergency.
|
| > It's something to pay attention and repair, but not
| something critical.
|
| Sure, the thing making sure the reactor doesn't suffer
| catastrophic damage is not critical. Right.
|
| I also must have forgotten that disasters politely add
| themselves to the schedule with plenty warning time.
|
| > Even if the generator fails, passive system will cool
| down the reactor for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile
| generator on a truck to arrive and be connected, without
| any damage.
|
| Didn't quite work that way for Fukushima.
|
| > There were only one case where generators and all
| external power supplies had failed, that is of course
| Fukushima. Even in that context, if the passive systems
| where not damaged by the tzunami, there wouldn't have been
| any release of radioactivity.
|
| Sure, it only took lots of people working around the clock
| to keep things contained (so it seems it wasn't something
| one could just ignore, it needed urgent work), and it cost
| a huge amount of $$$ to deal with it, and it destroyed
| those reactors, which is more $$$.
|
| That it didn't blow up Chernobyl style is absolutely a
| great thing, but it probably cost more than it ever made
| money, and that's not exactly something that encourages
| anyone to build more.
| crote wrote:
| They found cracks in _fuel_ oil lines. Last time I checked,
| generators need fuel to operate. In fact, the article even
| states:
|
| > the problem grew to a point where the diesel generator
| system did not work during testing.
|
| You have backups because things unexpectedly fail. It's the
| Swiss Cheese model: more than one system can fail at the
| same time so you should be able to handle multiple failures
| at once. Especially because failures often cause _other_
| failures to happen.
|
| Fukushima also had multiple grid connections. They had 13
| emergency generators which could be cross-connected between
| reactors. They could also bring in mobile generators. It
| still wasn't enough, because they shared a huge unknown
| common failure mode.
|
| Fukushima is _exactly_ the reason why ignoring defects on
| one of your two emergency generators for twenty years is
| such a big deal. When the potential impact is as large as
| it is with nuclear power, you simply cannot afford slacking
| off like this.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Reminds me a little bit of what happened in Ohio.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Management assholes not spending the money to fix it properly,
| they'd rather take the profits instead. This is a disease that
| should be eradicated with jail and massive fines.
| BeastMachine wrote:
| I'm an advocate for nuclear power but it seems ridiculous that
| this warning was given 20 years after the initial find.
|
| I understand that nuclear facilities are not like regular
| buildings and require more logistics for repairs but there's no
| way it would require 20 years.
| landemva wrote:
| > not like regular buildings and require more logistics for
| repairs but there's no way it would require 20 years.
|
| tldr; regulatory processes prevent improvements.
|
| I work in a highly regulated industry though not nuclear. There
| are obvious things to change which were approved in the site
| plans decades ago. Those nonsensical systems must be maintained
| because if they stop working for a small number of hours,
| everything must be stopped and there will be fines. It won't be
| changed because doing so requires asking regulator for approval
| and then everybody and their uncle gets to make a comment and
| even sue to stop it. Regulatory process hinders obvious good
| changes and improvements.
|
| BTW, this is similar to how Los Angeles squeezed out good
| paying manufacturing jobs three decades ago - make it near-
| impossible to get electrical permit to change anything.
| [deleted]
| cmilton wrote:
| The way I understood it was inspections have always been done.
| The original cracks were repaired. New ones did not show up
| until 2022.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That's not my understanding from reading the linked article
| and one linked from it.
|
| From: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article
| 28022...
|
| > The NRC, which rarely issues yellow findings, said nuclear
| plant operators did not resolve cracking problems from 2003
| to 2022 in V.C. Summer's diesel generator system, one of the
| most important backup safety systems at an atomic power
| plant.
|
| which links to: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environme
| nt/article27928...
|
| > Federal nuclear safety officials made a discovery that was
| perhaps more unsettling than the problem from 2022. They
| identified a pattern of cracks and leaks in the plant's
| emergency generator system going back 20 years. On five
| different occasions since 2003, the power company has been
| forced to repair cracks in the emergency diesel generator
| system, according to an agency inspection report released in
| August. Diesel oil leaks have focused attention on why VC
| Summer plant operators did not resolve the cracking problems
| -- and how that might have affected the company's ability to
| prevent a radiation leak if an emergency occurred. Officials
| with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say they are concerned
| because the problems keep recurring. Few other nuclear plants
| in the Southeast have had the same number of cracking
| problems in diesel generator systems, say officials in the
| agency's Atlanta office.
| cmilton wrote:
| We would need to assume that each of those events was
| spread out over the entirety of the 20 years. All 5
| occasions could have happened between 2003 and 2007, and
| fifteen years passed before the next. Each time the cracks
| were repaired.
|
| Without a true timeline of events, its hard to say for
| sure.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| "In this case, officials at the V.C. Summer plant learned
| about cracks in fuel pipes in the facility's diesel
| generator system in 2003. Utility workers fixed the initial
| crack, as well as other cracks four different times in the
| years after the initial work was done. But the NRC says the
| utility never adequately assessed what could be done to
| make sure the diesel piping system did not experience more
| cracking. The most recent cracks were identified in
| November 2022 during a 24-hour test of the system. Workers
| found a small leak on one of two diesel generator systems.
| The leak increased over time and workers discovered a
| 140-degree crack around a pipe, records show."
|
| So they found cracks first in 2003, and fixed them. They
| found more cracks over the years and fixed them... what
| they have failed to do is to stop the cracking from
| occurring in the first place. That failure led to an even
| bigger crack happening during a test run of the system.
| According to Dominion, they plan to build a new pipe, which
| should fix this. The NRC seems to think they should have
| done this sooner, and the NRC is likely right, but I am no
| expert in these things.
|
| It probably should also result in a much more throughout
| inspection of the plant to ensure that there are no other
| issues. Again, I have no expertise here.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Agreed overall. That specifically contradict's GP's
| upthread understanding of "The original cracks were
| repaired. New ones did not show up until 2022."
| [deleted]
| londons_explore wrote:
| Time to consult Homer Simpson? His expertise can be had for the
| low low cost of a few doughnuts.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Nuclear power should be run by the state, like in France.
| tourist2d wrote:
| France is a country, silly.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The good news is that the yellow card is for not resolving issues
| with the backup diesel power system, not anything to do with the
| reactor vessel or primary loop.
|
| This is the right abundance of caution for the NRC to use (after
| all, that kind of reactor can melt down if power completely fails
| and cannot be maintained to sink heat), but it should be an easy
| fix. If anything, the yellow card was given for how long
| Dominion's been letting itself sit on an easy fix.
|
| (On the other hand, the justifiably-paranoid might ask what else
| is wrong if they've let a maintenance issue this relatively
| unimportant slide...)
| christophilus wrote:
| > the justifiably-paranoid might ask what else is wrong if
| they've let a maintenance issue this relatively unimportant
| slide...
|
| Exactly. It seems like the kind of negligence that should get a
| license revoked and have the plant seized and handed over to a
| more competent manager (Duke seems reasonable).
|
| I wonder if there's precedence for such a move when it comes to
| utilities in the US?
|
| Edit: It doesn't seem quite as negligent after a second
| reading, but ... still makes me wonder what else has been done
| quickly and without really addressing the root issue...
| roenxi wrote:
| What do you think happened here? To me it reads like there
| was an issue, the the issue was identified in a preemptive
| maintenance program and got fixed. The regulator's [0]
| complaint seems to be the operator may have been able to
| detect the problem sooner.
|
| The sounds acceptable. We're not able to run any piece of
| gear without the occasional failure - the argument with
| nuclear is a failure scenario appears to be about as damaging
| as the business-as-usual so all y'all be mad for putting so
| much effort into preventing it that nuclear became
| uneconomic.
|
| Uneconomic because finding and fixing a crack in a pipe in
| the backup system is 4-on-a-5-tier system of regulatory
| response and has people talking about delicensing the
| operator.
|
| [0] Oh wait I know this regulator. The dude who is in charge
| has a B. Arts in Religious Studies -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_T._Hanson - which
| isn't a problem in itself but I felt it was apart of a
| pattern when it came to heads of the regulator. Their
| backgrounds didn't inspire my confidence.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| This reminds me of the "Green M&Ms Canary" story; attributed to
| Van Halen.
|
| They were famous for having a clause in the preparation
| checklist, that they had to have a bowl of M&Ms in the lounge,
| _but no green ones_.
|
| Eddie Van Halen was asked about this, and his explanation was
| that their stage set was very complex, and required rigorous
| preparation. Failure could actually be dangerous (think the
| "pod" scene from _Spinal Tap_ ).
|
| He said that if they found green M&Ms, then that meant the
| instructions were not read correctly.
|
| _[EDIT] I was wrong. It was brown M &Ms_
| adaml_623 wrote:
| Brown M&Ms. Which is tiny I know but I have a suspicion you
| did that to test us
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| No. It was my mistake. I didn't read the rider, so Dave
| would be stuck in a pod.
| dylan604 wrote:
| ahem...you clearly didn't read the rider. it was brown M&Ms
|
| "The rider's "Munchies" section was where the group made its
| candy-with-a-caveat request: "M&M's (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO
| BROWN ONES)." *
|
| *https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/van-halens-
| leg...
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> you clearly didn 't read the rider._
|
| You are correct, which is why I am not setting up metal
| stages.
| vsareto wrote:
| It's cute, but it's a tattered and dirty band-aid compared to
| what you could do to ensure things were followed correctly.
|
| But the correct way costs way more money than M&Ms.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| The M&M test is a tactic. It's not the only strategy you
| would employ if you were trying to solve the issues that
| Fukushima had and money wasn't relevant to how this
| solution helped Van Halen. Drawing interesting parallels
| makes for better conversation, I'm not sure anyone needed
| to be reminded of the differences between a Band's live
| show setup and Nuclear Power Plant safety.
|
| That being said... you would be surprised to learn how
| often "cute" tactics like these are utilized by governments
| to leverage human behavior.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-09 23:01 UTC)