If this has been posted already, i appologize, but it seems to succinctly outline some of the potential problems with nuclear plants. Please note that the "Union of Concerned Scientists" generally has an anti-nuclear agenda, with or without y2k.

1990912 edgs on g north Gary North's Y2K Links and Forums

Summary and Comments

(feel free to mail this page)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category:

Power_Grid

Date:

1999-09-10 07:14:43

Subject:

Diesel Generators Keep Nuclear Power Plants Safe When Outside Power Cuts Off

Link:

http://www.sightings.com/politics4/y2kpowergrid.htm

Comment:

A nuclear power plant does not supply its own power. It relies on outside AC power, just like the rest of us do. If this power stops, battery power takes over. This lasts for two hours. At that point (or before), diesel power generators at the plant had better turn on. Otherwise, the plant will have safety problems with the core.

The issue of the reliability of diesel power generation was raised at a late July y2k meeting held at George Washington University. This is from SIGHTINGS.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Summary of the Panel Discussion "Y2K, Nuclear Power Plant Safety and the Electric Power Grid"

Sponsored by the GW Y2K Group and Hosted by The Washington Post Company at The Washington Post July 28, 1999.

(Excerpt)

Paul Gunter, Director of the NIRS Reactor Watchdog Project, began by discussing the gravest problem Y2K poses to nuclear plants, the potential loss of electrical power. As a December 1998 report prepared by NIRS explains, "A little-known reality of nuclear power is that atomic reactors need a steady source of electricity to cool their cores and irradiated fuel pools even when they are shut down. Without this cooling ability, even closed reactors would melt down; fuel pools would boil dry and release their highly-radioactive inventories."

It is well known that one of the chief risks of Y2K is to the continuous, stable operation of the electrical power grid. As the February 24, 1999 Senate Y2K Committee Report stated, "local and regional [power] outages remain a distinct possibility." The potential for a prolonged nationwide blackout, while considered to be unlikely, also cannot be ruled out. Mr. Gunter spoke about the ramifications of electrical power loss to nuclear plants. The following comments are taken from his prepared text:

"In the event of a grid failure and loss of offsite power, nuclear power stations attached to disrupted grid systems will automatically scram with the rapid insertion of control rods. The reactors cease producing of electricity. Nuclear power stations are neither designed nor capable of 'black start' or the ability to operate independent of available offsite Alternating Current (AC) electricity.

"Once scrammed, a nuclear power station must address the tremendous amount of heat generated by the atomic reaction within the fuel core. With the loss of offsite power a substantial number of systems normally used to cool the reactor are also lost and unavailable." Because the nuclear reactor fuel will melt with catastrophic results in the event of a power failure and subsequent loss of cooling capability, nuclear power plants are required to have backup power sources. These are normally giant diesel generators, as Mr. Gunter explained:

"Emergency power must be generated onsite to maintain reactor core stability through the removal of this 'residual heat' via a system of circulating coolant pumps and motor operated components. Additional safety-related monitoring and control systems require electrical power stored and generated on-site. Emergency Diesel Generators are designed to provide back-up electrical power and charge onsite auxiliary batteries necessary for the duration of any grid instability or failure."

The gravest danger inherent at nuclear power plants is the simultaneous failure of both the electrical power grid and the onsite Emergency Diesel Generators (EDG). According to Mr. Gunter, this condition, known as "station blackout," is regarded by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the largest postulated contributor to reactor accidents resulting in fuel damage. He explained,

"A station blackout of long duration (in excess of 2 hours) leads to auxiliary battery depletion for AC conversion and subsequent loss of vital instrumentation and control features. The uncovering of the reactor core and its associated hazards can occur within a range of 3 to 10 hours beyond the time of battery depletion without restoration of AC power...with the combination of grid failure, battery failure and EDG failure 'core damage begins in approximately one hour as the result of coolant boiloff' or uncovering the core for some reactors. Core damage can be expected to proceed to a core melt if effective and timely measures to restore AC power and core cooling are not taken or available..."

Mr. Gunter continued, "NRC studies consider a long duration blackout event in excess of two hours to be a dominant factor influencing the likelihood of core damage or a core-melt accident. Long-term or recurring grid failure as a result of Y2K vulnerabilities has not been sufficiently studied."

What is the probability that a nuclear power plant's Emergency Diesel Generators would fail to operate if needed in the event of a Y2K-induced electrical power loss? The most sobering information released during the July 28 panel regarded the unreliability of these backup power systems.

Mr. Gunter reported that ongoing evaluations of Emergency Diesel Generator reliability at our nation's nuclear power plants reveal cause for great concern; at best, the NCR says that they are 95% reliable. Mr. Gunter stated that "multiple events [of EDG unreliability] occur each month," and cited six recent events of EDG failure at various plants. He concluded his report by saying, "NIRS expects to see continued problems with EDG design, hardware failures, operation and maintenance errors and failures related to support systems to occur up to and beyond the Y2K susceptible dates."

In light of this situation, last December NIRS petitioned the NRC to require nuclear power plants to install additional backup power onsite. To date, Mr. Gunter reported, the NRC has not responded to the NIRS petition.

David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists also spoke at the July 28 panel. Prior to joining UCS in 1996, Mr. Lochbaum worked as a nuclear engineer in the U.S. commercial nuclear power industry for over 17 years. His presentation addressed the process used by the NRC to determine "Y2K-readiness" of the nation's nuclear power plants. In a July 7 article entitled "Y2K and Nuclear Safety," Mr. Lochbaum stated that this process, consisting of NRC-conducted audit tours and surveys completed by nuclear plant operators, was unreliable and insufficient:

"NRC inspectors conducted audits of Y2K preparations at nuclear power plants...The inspectors have been told what to examine, but they have not been provided acceptance criteria. Therefore, these audits--which are more precisely termed sightseeing tours--cannot determine if the nuclear plants meet minimum safety standards."

In his July 7 article, Mr. Lochbaum explained that some nuclear plant owners are reporting to the NRC that their systems are Y2K compliant when they may not be:

"NRC inspectors went to the Brunswick nuclear plant in North Carolina and learned that the plant's owner relied exclusively on certifications by companies supplying its hardware and software. Brunswick did no testing when it had a piece of paper saying that a computer system was Y2K compliant. The NRC inspectors then traveled to the Salem nuclear plant in New Jersey. At Salem, the plant owner tested some of the hardware and software that had been certified to be Y2K compliant. Some of the certified systems flunked the tests."

In this same article, he also questioned the NRC's lack of compliance standards:

"The NRC knows that some nuclear plant owners are relying heavily on paperwork instead of testing. The NRC has documentation that this paperwork cannot always be trusted. The NRC is not unhappy about this situation. Why? Because in the NRC's eyes, no nuclear plant can be below Y2K minimum standards because there are no standards defined. Everyone passes an NRC test because there is no answer key."

The General Accounting Office has also chastised the NRC for lack of compliance standards. In a January 1999 report entitled "Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Nuclear Regulatory Commission," the GAO said, "NRC's regulations and other guidance do not define, for either a licensee or the public, the conditions necessary for a plant's safety; therefore, determining a plant's safety is subjective."

Another issue of concern addressed by Mr. Lochbaum was NRC press release No. 99-153, issued July 22, 1999, entitled "NRC Issues Interim Enforcement Policy on Y2K." In this press release, the NRC announced their approval of an interim enforcement policy allowing the use of "enforcement discretion" under certain circumstances for nuclear power plants during Y2K transition periods. In his prepared statement for the July 28 panel, Mr. Lochbaum explained the meaning of this interim policy:

"The NRC is preparing to allow nuclear plants with broken emergency equipment to continue operating. Remember that just last month the NRC announced that the emergency equipment at every nuclear power plant in the United States is Y2K ready. That's what they say. Actions speak louder than words. The NRC has taken steps to allow plant owners to continue operating plants with emergency equipment disabled by Y2K by simply picking up the phone and calling a friendly NRC agent for special dispensation."

As Mr. Lochbaum told the audience, Technical Specifications, or Tech Specs, define minimum standards that must be met for plants to operate. For example, when a piece of emergency equipment is found to be broken, the Tech Specs might require it to be fixed within 72 hours. If it is not fixed in time, the plant must be immediately shut down. . . .

Link:

http://www.sightings.com/politics4/y2kpowergrid.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Anonymous, September 12, 1999

Answers

To support your bogus claim that Union of Concerned Scientists is anti-nuclear, just give one example of UCS calling for the end of nuclear power.

Why are former NRC Commissioners on the board of UCS?

Check your facts. UCS is pro-nuclear safety.

Diesel Generator Problems

-- Anonymous, September 13, 1999

Jill,

"To support your bogus claim that Union of Concerned Scientists is anti-nuclear, just give one example of UCS calling for the end of nuclear power. "

Sorry, I couldn't find just one example of the UCS anti-nuclear postion. They are really anti-fossil fuel and anti-nuclear and pro renewable resource. Below are a few (more than one) paragraphs selected at random from their web site which exhibit their anti-nuclear attitude and agenda.

Please note that I am not against renewable energy resources either. They are great, just not as practical as fossil fuel and nuclear in today's world. Here in Texas, solar would work well, generally, but not everywhere and is not nearly as cost effective. I don't think you could reasonably find a suitable substitute for fossil fuel and nuclear power in the heavily populated sort of low sun and wind power North East US.

"Why are former NRC Commissioners on the board of UCS? "

Perhaps they know something most people don't know about the nuclear plants?

"Check your facts. UCS is pro-nuclear safety. "

Sorry, I didn't find any mention of improving nuclear safety, just switching from nuclear and fossil fuel power to renewable resource power.

If you wish to check out their web site and see for yourself you might try looking for 'energy' on their website:

http://www.ucsusa.org

Here are a few paras - no I didn't keep the references, but they are all on their site. If you are forced to read through their stuff, you might find out more about their true agenda.

Illinois. Several Illinois organizations are actively promoting sustainable energy policies and encouraging a transition away from nuclear power. In fall 1997, the state legislature passed a bill to restructure Illinois's electric utility industry. UCS participated in a campaign led by the Environmental Law and Policy Center (based in Chicago) to include more funding or incentives for renewables and efficiency, but the results were disappointing. The final bill contained $5 million for renewables, efficiency, and "clean coal" projects and $3 for environmental projects.

The Clean Energy Act of 1999 has already attracted eight cosponsors in the Senate, which is a good start. UCS is recruiting additional cosponsors to improve the chances that the bill will be able to survive tough opposition from fossil fuel and nuclear industry interests. Please see the UCS action alert, the UCS endorsement by Alden Meyer, UCS Director of Government Relations at the introduction of the bill, the Jeffords fact sheet and the bill summary for more details.

By opting to buy "green power" as it becomes available, consumers can reduce the demand for the nuclear, coal, and oil plants used to supply the Northeast electricity grid today. UCS and other environmental organizations in the region are working with power producers to encourage the development of new renewable energy options for businesses and individual consumers.

All fossil fuels and nuclear power contribute to one or more of these problems. Since these sources currently account for more than 90 percent of the electricity generated in the United States, it is not possible to avoid them altogether. But some are worse than others, and you can try to minimize their use.

Nuclear Power. After coal, the next largest source of our electricity is nuclear power. While nuclear plants don't cause air pollution, they do create radioactive waste, which must be stored for thousands of years. As accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl proved, nuclear plants carry the risk of catastrophic failure. And nuclear power can be very expensive.

Many renewable power sources now cost somewhat more than conventional power, because the market for renewables is not fully developed and renewables have received fewer subsidies than fossil and nuclear fuels. Also, the damage to the environment and human health caused by fossil fuels and nuclear power is not included in electricity prices. Renewable energy needs your support to overcome these barriers and become less expensive in the future.

xBob

-- Anonymous, September 14, 1999

There were no anti-nuclear statements in what you posted.

-- Anonymous, September 15, 1999

I guess that trying to get rid of all nuclear and fossil fuel power, replacing it with renewable resource power and reducing consumption of nuclear and fossil fuel power makes them pro-nuclear? I guess avoiding their use makes them pro-nuclear? I didn't do a thorough search on their site. How much pro nuclear stuff did you find there? Please site me some examples.

It appears to me from what I have read on their positions, if they could shut down all nuclear plants and fossil fuel plants right now and replace them with renewable resource fuels they would do it immediately.

If you want to complain, cite some references.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 1999

Smokey,

You must have never been married. Try sitting down to dinner at your wife's table, eating some, then suggesting that youall go out to dinner, and see what she thinks you are saying about her cooking.

Somehow, even if you say, "It's delicious", as you lick it off your face, I don't think she will believe you.

xBob

-- Anonymous, September 17, 1999