I guess Rick removed the news article (rightly so) because it had nothing to do with Y2K.

I have an interesting point that does have to do with Y2K, though...

> Plant managers also worried about rising temperatures in > a 23-foot-deep pool that cools spent reactor fuel. The > temperature reached 140 degrees -- roughly the point > where evaporation would increase -- but enough offsite > electricity returned to power the cooling pumps.

We've been told time after time on this forum by the "experts" that cooling fuel is *not* a problem when offsite power is lost.

Why did they need offsite power to power the cooling pumps? Haven't we been assured by all the nuke people on the forum here that there are multiple ways to cool the pools without offsite power?

Sounds to me like this approached a crisis (140 degrees - do they measure this temperature in celsius or fahrenheit?) until the offsite power was restored... Also sounds like both the emergency diesels were less than perfect in terms of operation.

Jon

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Answers

water at 140 degrees C under normal air pressure is team. Give me a break.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

I disagree about removing my post on the Ohio Tornado incident. Though I am no electric power expert, we have bunches of people arguing, no problem if the nuc's lose commercial power , they have generators. Well, here is an actual example where outside power and communications were really lost and we almost lost the plant. Y2k related or not, for the actual incident, this is an example of what could and did happen.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Note - 100C is the definition of boiling point of water, 212F, at normal atmospheric pressure.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Yeah, okay, I didn't think too far about that. Must have been F.

I think your point is valid that the article is Y2K related, but Rick has said before you have to make an explicit link to Y2K for this kind of stuff to stay up.

I'm very interested what the utility experts have to say about my original post.

Jon

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Jon, You state that We've been told time after time on this forum by the "experts" that cooling fuel is *not* a problem when offsite power is lost.  I do not believe that anyone has said anything like this here, and I know that I certainly have not made such a statement. A total loss of offsite power is serious business, and IS a problem. This is a problem that plants are designed to handle, and I have personally experienced this event, and believe me, relying on EDGs as the only available power source makes me very uncomfortable. I was the electrical engineer for the EDGs at the time of the total loss of offsite power event, and quite relieved to see both start and run upon demand as designed. After all, this was the real thing, quite unlike the many starts I had been involved with during testing. If you have read some of my posts, you know that EDG reliability is an important issue with me.

Based on my work identifying and remediating Y2K bugs in the nuclear industry, I am confident that Y2K not lead to loss of offsite power events that could challenge EDGs and core cooling. My discussion of cooling of the reactor vessel core vs. Y2K is found in my address of Caldecotts nonsense. I am concerned about much more likely causes of loss of offsite power events such as faults caused by weather, accidents, sabotage, and the like.

Concerning spent fuel cooling, I have some knowledge, but am not an expert. I do want to make clear that to the best of my knowledge, not all the pumps associated with spent fuel are on emergency power, and this may be plant specific as to the design. Spent fuel cooling is not normally of immediate concern, since it takes a long time for this huge pool of water to heat up. However there are several sources of water available from tanks, should the heat up cause significant evaporation. Good discussions of spent fuel cooling can be found in the following older threads posted in this forum. here and here.

For detailed information on the various systems at one nuclear power plant, including that plants spent fuel and emergency core cooling systems, see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/dept/Courses/NE-135/> System Training Guides at Berekely (pdf format, large files).

Jon, I do believe that your asking the right questions, intelligent and important questions, and I have tried to provide you with some of the information I have. I may not give you the answers you need, I may not prove anything, but I do try to give the facts as best as I can.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, June 25, 1999

I messed up some of the links in my post above, let me try again: Good discussions of spent fuel cooling can be found in the following older threads posted in this forum here and here.

For detailed information on the various systems at one nuclear power plant, including that plants spent fuel and emergency core cooling systems, see System Training Guides at Berekely (pdf format, large files).

Regards,

-- Anonymous, June 25, 1999