backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by Xcpus.. on May 14 at 4:06 PM


Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant  (Source: svsnowgoose.com)
A valve on its residual heat removal system was stuck shut, which prompted in-depth inspections by the NRC

Nuclear power has received a lot of criticism lately due to the 9.0-magnitude earthquake that rocked Japan on March 11. U.S. Senators urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to repeat the inspection of nuclear power in the United States after it was already deemed safe, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for a global nuclear review after visiting Japan.

Despite all of these negative reviews, there are also many advocates who see the benefits of cheap, clean and reliable nuclear power as an alternative energy source. U.S. President Barack Obama even embraced nuclear energy in last year's State of the Union address

No matter which side you're on, many can agree that safety comes first, and now, federal regulators are concerned about the safety of an Alabama nuclear plant after its emergency cooling system failed. 

The Browns Ferry nuclear power plant is located near Athens, Alabama and is run by the Tennessee Valley Authority. A valve on its residual heat removal system was stuck shut, which prompted in-depth inspections by the NRC.  

According to reports, there have been previous problems with the valve. Originally, the valve failed sometime after March 2009, but wasn't identified until October 2010 when the plant was being refueled. The valve was fixed at that time, and was labeled as a manufacturer's defect. Despite the plant's effort to fix the valve and inspect all others like it, the NRC criticized the plant for not finding the valve issue sooner through routine inspections.

"The valve was repaired prior to returning the unit to service and Browns Ferry continued to operate safely," said Victor McCree, the NRC's Region ll administrator. "However, significant problems involving key safety systems warrant more extensive NRC inspection and oversight." 

Had there been an emergency, the NRC worries that the faulty valve could have prevented the emergency cooling systems from working correctly. For this reason, the NRC will continue to review the safety culture, organization and performance of the plant. 

"The results of this inspection will aid the NRC in deciding whether additional regulatory actions are necessary to assure public health and safety," said McCree.  

For the time being, the NRC has issued a red finding against the Brown Ferry nuclear plant, which is the most severe ranking given to a plant for inspection. Only five red findings have been issued in the U.S. in the past decade. It is unknown whether the Tennessee Valley Authority will appeal the finding from the NRC at this time.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

TVA
By bildan on 5/12/2011 3:03:02 PM , Rating: 4
The TVA is a "government owned corporation" which can, and usually does, combine the worst of government-run programs with the worst of corporate malfeasance. Letting this Frankenstein entity run nuclear reactors is an horrific idea worthy of the name.

Just who runs reactors is very important. We know for-profit corporations will cut corners on safety to improve their bottom line. Semi-socialist government programs like TVA are just inept.

A lot of people are in an uncomfortable position of supporting nuclear energy but not trusting their local power and light company to do it safely.

So, how about the one organization most people would trust to run civilian nukes - the US Navy.

Adm. Rickover gave the Navy an impressive nuclear safety culture which would be put to good use running all US nuclear power stations.

Like the TVA, the electricity would be sold to private distributors who would deliver it to consumers and bill them.

Corporations are good at billing.




RE: TVA
By phantom505 on 5/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: TVA
By rcc on 5/12/2011 3:50:48 PM , Rating: 5
I've seen the Eisenhower line semi-quoted several times on DT. Again it's a line paraprased out of context.

quote:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.



So, yes, it's something that needs watching, but Eisenhower didn't say it was a disaster, he said it was necessary, and that we as "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" could keep it in line. He'd probably be a bit ashamed of the average citizen's mental torpitude these days.


RE: TVA
By YashBudini on 5/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: TVA
By B-Unit on 5/12/2011 7:06:08 PM , Rating: 5
Your naive enough to think that he has stopped?


RE: TVA
By therealnickdanger on 5/13/2011 9:52:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well obviously, now that Obama has arrived to save us! We are no longer in any wars, all our troops are home, Guantanamo is closed, the economy is doing great, government transparency is the best it's ever been, employment is up (in government), lots of new social programs are rolling out, the deficit is no longer a big deal, corporations and special interest groups no longer control the White House, wiretapping citizens has stopped, f*cking Bush is impeached and on trial for killing the Jews (he was a Nazi, remember?), and all the land is full of rainbows and it rains gumdrops.


RE: TVA
By BSMonitor on 5/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: TVA
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 8:53:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Your naive enough to think that he has stopped?

No, but after Bush he dropped below mach 1 again.


RE: TVA
By YashBudini on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: TVA
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 8:41:12 PM , Rating: 1
And the horse you rode in on.


RE: TVA
By phantom505 on 5/12/2011 7:13:26 PM , Rating: 3
I was a government contractor. I quite because of what I viewed was even more ridiculous prior to "contract reform". I was working for the Air Force ultimately. However, this is the pay chain: Air Force paid the Navy to pay the "prime contractor" to pay the "subcontractor" to pay me.

They would have hired me directly and saved money. Instead I ended up quitting because the nasty little company I worked for refused to pay for health care benefits (which a union later made them).

So much for "efficiency".


RE: TVA
By JediJeb on 5/13/2011 2:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was working for the Air Force ultimately. However, this is the pay chain: Air Force paid the Navy to pay the "prime contractor" to pay the "subcontractor" to pay me.


That's where the expense is created. If the government would simply add in a "no sub contract" clause and require anyone getting a contract to be capable of providing the work themselves, then they could eliminate much of the waste. The state of Kentucky has began issuing such contracts. The lab I work for has had to forgo bidding on some of them because there are tests listed in them that we do not currently do.


RE: TVA
By 0ldman on 5/13/2011 5:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe limits to subcontracting, but it would be near impossible to do away with it.

Just build an office building. You have the general contractor that does the foundation, building, walls, weatherproofing.

Generally a licensed plumber, electrician, etc, is required. If the job is big enough the plumber might sub out to another group.

Happens all the time. The bigger the business/project/gov't/etc, the bigger the cost/waste. Once it gets complicated, no one person can overview the entire job and stuff gets wasted.


RE: TVA
By sorry dog on 5/14/2011 10:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe a well intentioned idea, but I think it would cause more trouble than savings. For instance, when I used to manage building treatment plants, I might be the prime and the cost of some of the equipment and associated specialty installation needed might be more than my part of contract pouring concrete structures. However, labor is the biggest risk, so I had more risk than the equipment vendor. And I didn't have the sources or the knowledge to put in said specialty equipment, just like the equipment vendor would not have the ability to bid concrete work. So you gotta sub some stuff...unless you make individual contracts, which would be a real coordination headache with additional project management overhead.

I've been apart of a Navy contract or two as a sub...and the BIGGEST reason why they paid too much for the work is they had an invitation only bidding process. Only 3 outfits were able to bid on the work that we did. My company did 95% of the work, and the prime basically made some free money by being an invited bidder. They COULD have done the work without us, but they likely would have upped the bid a few hundred thousand.

I still don't exactly know how one gets invited, and it may have changed since that was 8 years ago. But it seems to me the best way to get lower bids is make the bidding process more transparent with more open qualifications.


RE: TVA
By cruisin3style on 5/14/2011 2:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the OP is talking about this quote

quote:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.


RE: TVA
By 3minence on 5/13/2011 9:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lot of people are in an uncomfortable position of supporting nuclear energy but not trusting their local power and light company to do it safely.

That's me. I trust nuclear power, I just don't trust the nuclear power industry.


RE: TVA
By jdparker520 on 5/13/2011 10:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
Given your comments, I have to assume that you do not live in or near the Tennessee Valley. I do, and I can tell you that everyone I have ever spoken to in the area is very pleased with TVA. They deliver some of the cheapest power in the nation and produce such a surplus that we are a major exporter of power. I am unable to comment regarding their safety culture, but I can conclude based on my experience as a customer that they are far from "inept".

Also, I'm surprised that no one has brought up the recent controlled emergency shut down that Browns Ferry went through as a result of the tornadoes that swept through the east US. The plant was forced through the same procedure as the Fukushima plant, except their backup generators were not damaged so they still had enough power to run the cooling system. So far it looks like the plant was in good enough shape to make it through this emergency procedure without incident. It is concerning that they didn't find out about this failure for so long, but that concern is tempered somewhat by the fact that the plant has been shown to perform well in an emergency.

FYI, I'm not a shill. I work for a designer of networking equipment in Huntsville, AL.


RE: TVA
By NellyFromMA on 5/13/2011 2:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
I never spent a lot of time thinking about this, but that sounds, at face value, to be a great idea! Maybe there are realistic reasons why the Navy (or some branch of military) isn't currently responsible for this, but I feel as though this is a common-sense idea and approach. Why have a 'government owned corporation' be responsible for this? If you want to ensure absolute oversight on these matters that require great discipline, this seems practical.

It's not as if safety inspection itself stands to gain from being commercial in any way (that I can think of having spent 5 minutes thinking on it, lol).

Kudos for logic!


RE: TVA
By konacustom on 5/13/2011 5:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
I worked as a 'Nuke' MM on a fast boat in the US Navy and recently hired on in the Norfolk Naval Shipyard as a nuclear engineer. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the malfeasance mentioned above with TVA is absolutely the case at NNSY! I cannot understate this! It is a culture of cronyism and nepotism at the shipyard and involves no merrit whatsoever. Its so bad that I am not staying and am praying against all that one of these new idiots they hired (they didn't even know who Rickover was/is nor Isenhower for that matter! or how to apply concepts of pressure vs force in the classroom!!!)don't cause some sort of accident. The main reason why there isn't another nuclear accident in the U.S. is because of a select few individuals that actually remember something from their training and 'wipe the asses' of those who don't. One day they will get tired and they will faulter....I hope not but it is a statistical certainty.


RE: TVA
By konacustom on 5/13/2011 5:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
correction...*overstate*

I remember many times there would be systems that needed new components and the solution was to go to another boat and 'chop and swap' their component with ours which meant ultimately that when their system got put back together it would be improperly documented what exactly happened. Its not the Navy operators (i.e. the enlisted guys) one should be afraid of...its the corporate culture that the naval shipyards have adopted to run things. They run it like its a corporation which in nuclear is *not* a good thing at all. Scary...even for a nuke!


Nuclear.
By icanhascpu on 5/12/2011 7:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
DT loves it some nuclear news. Not a bad thing, I eat these kinds of stories up myself.

For poops and chuckles here is a cool png of radiation values of various things.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsalliance.com/medi...




RE: Nuclear.
By elFarto on 5/13/2011 5:43:49 AM , Rating: 2
...or you could just link to the original:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Regards
elFarto


RE: Nuclear.
By therealnickdanger on 5/13/2011 9:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
+1

That's fantastic. I had seen a different one, but not as well laid out as that! Thanks!


Clearing up some confusion
By Donovan on 5/12/2011 7:20:39 PM , Rating: 5
There seems to be some confusion about the nature of the valve, the testing performed, and the dates involved. I am not an expert in the field, but here are the facts from the NRC's official findings as best I can summarize them.

The valve is for Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) on one of the Residual Heat Removal (RSR) loops, part of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS). It is not a vent valve...it is used for emergency coolant injection at low pressures (other systems work to keep the reactor cool until the pressure can be lowered enough to use this). The failure was a separation of the disc that actually blocks flow from the stem that operates the valve.

The valve was last reassembled in June of 2006, and the NRC states this as the earliest that the failure could have occurred. The plant operator has concluded that the valve had failed as of October of 2008 based on going back and reviewing old test data. The NRC accepts this as the failure date for the record but notes that the test analysis is inconclusive. The valve was under relevant operation from March 13, 2009 until the failure was recognized on October 23, 2010, so this is the period for which a violation occurred.

The valve can and is required to be tested regularly while in-place, but the test procedure used by the plant operator was inadequate. Specifically, they tested that the indicator lights worked and the valve stem moved, but did not actually check the flow to determine if the valve really opened. The NRC determined that the testing performed did not meet regulations, and also noted that similar valve failures have occurred at the same plant (meaning they were on notice that this needed to be tested for).

Official findings on NRC's website: http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAcces...




oh please...
By kattanna on 5/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: oh please...
By B-Unit on 5/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: oh please...
By Ticholo on 5/12/2011 2:40:40 PM , Rating: 5
Come on! Give Homer Simpson a break!


RE: oh please...
By Souka on 5/12/2011 5:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm, so what did this valve do exactly? Did it matter that it was broken?


RE: oh please...
By SunTzu on 5/12/2011 5:41:49 PM , Rating: 3
It vents heat out of the reactor, in case of a malfunction. If you cannot vent, you cannot cool the reactor, which could theoretically lead to a meltdown of the fuelrods.


RE: oh please...
By bunnyfubbles on 5/12/2011 5:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
hey, at least he'd make sure the vending machines wouldn't be so picky about taking beat-up dollar bills...because a lot of workers really like candy


RE: oh please...
By kattanna on 5/12/2011 2:47:30 PM , Rating: 3
all the article says, aka actual facts, is that the last hard inspection of note was march 2009. when they did another inspection during routine refueling in october of 2010 they noticed the valve was not working and replaced it.

that does NOT mean the valve was broken for over a year. for all we know it broke in september of 2010. dont read more into something that what is.

also..from the actual article

quote:
In an emergency, the failure of the valve could have meant that one of the plant's emergency cooling systems would not have worked as designed.


note the plural there. there are always multiple safety systems, so in the exact case of one system failing, it will not be an issue.

also note that all this happened in OCTOBER 2010.. yet only now.. after japan.. is the NRC getting all "bad plant" on them


RE: oh please...
By ClownPuncher on 5/12/2011 3:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
That is how news is reported, there are obvious implications, but it is left just ambiguous enough that they don't have to correct themselves when they learn the actual facts. Makes for more page hits!


RE: oh please...
By DanNeely on 5/12/2011 3:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
8 months is fast for the govt to move; even assuming the TVA reported the problem immediately.


RE: oh please...
By eggman on 5/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: oh please...
By SunTzu on 5/12/2011 5:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, this kind of inspection isnt done while the plant of is operational, for technical reasons. This *is* the routine inspection.


RE: oh please...
By rcc on 5/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: oh please...
By B-Unit on 5/12/2011 4:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
Your right, we dont know when it actually broke. BUT we do know that noone bothered to check on it between March 09 and October 2010. Plenty of cause for concern, wouldn't you say?


RE: oh please...
By ebakke on 5/12/2011 5:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plenty of cause for concern, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't say ... yet. Without knowing the maintenance schedule of that valve it seems foolish to claim any length of time is acceptable or not.


RE: oh please...
By Solandri on 5/12/2011 9:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BUT we do know that noone bothered to check on it between March 09 and October 2010. Plenty of cause for concern, wouldn't you say?

Reactors normally run about 18 months between refueling. Mar '09 to Oct '10 is 19 months. So this sounds like the regular interval between scheduled refuelings and maintenance checks.

It's difficult to say without knowing exactly where the valve was, but it's impractical or exceedingly dangerous to test certain sections of the cooling system (emergency or otherwise) while the reactor is in operation. You're better off building in multiple redundant systems, so it's highly unlikely that any one will fail. Then test them all during refueling. (Chernobyl happened because they conducted a live test of a new cooling system on an active reactor.)


RE: oh please...
By Solandri on 5/12/2011 9:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so it's highly unlikely that any one will fail

Obviously that should be "highly unlikely that all will fail". Serves me right for visiting the bathroom before hitting post. =p


RE: oh please...
By NucNut on 5/13/2011 5:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
The valve in question is only flow testable during shutdown conditions. Thus, if the plant runs for two years, there will be two years between opportunities to verify that the valve actually passes flow.
The system in question is a multipurpose system which is used during plant shutdowns to provide decay heat removal and also during postulated accidents to provide core cooling.
Not a good thing that it was not identified earlier, but also not a demonstration of gross malfeasance. It is pretty difficult to prove a valve disk has not separated from the stem without establishing flow, and it is not part of the design of many nuclear plant emergency cooling systems to be able to perform full flow testing when the plant is in operation. In this instance, the system is a low pressure system and thus could not overcome reactor pressure to inject water and prove flow path continuity.


RE: oh please...
By Xcpus on 5/14/2011 4:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
And for all we know it may have broken back in March. Point being we didn't know it was broken as there aren't enough inspections of the sort.

People like you are over zealous Nuclear Energy supporters. You are just as bad as the anti-Nuclear Energy folks IMHO.

Nuclear Energy ought to be left to "Liberals" to manage... not cost cutting "Conservatives". What I mean is that either a Nationalized model (no Public Ownership of Nuclear Energy) or a heavily regulated Private Nuclear industry ought to be permitted imho.

And I'm an anarchist lol.


RE: oh please...
By Xcpus on 5/14/2011 4:06:08 PM , Rating: 1
"Public Ownership" not "No Public Ownership"


RE: oh please...
By rcc on 5/12/2011 3:33:04 PM , Rating: 3
Not necessarily, it could have failed the day before. The point is that they don't know when it failed.

I'm in favor of nuclear power, but like everything else, particularly those things which the potential to do a great deal of harm, you have to keep them maintained and working.


RE: oh please...
By SunTzu on 5/12/2011 5:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, i can see that you really have no idea of how a BWR operates, and thats why you dont understand why this isnt possible to test during normal operations. They test it when they reactor is cold, during refueling.


RE: oh please...
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 2:30:13 PM , Rating: 3
Wait, are you telling me that a government agency responded to a disaster by completely overreacting and knee jerking a response? This seems out of the ordinary for our government.


RE: oh please...
By TSS on 5/12/2011 2:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
Safety is, and should always be, an issue.

Though if you really want to be safe you'll tear down all those reactors and rebuild them with current designs that simply cannot melt down. You'll probably get more power output as well, change some reprocessing laws and even waste isn't an issue anymore.

But really, if you did that nobody could use the nuclear scare as leverage anymore now could they?


RE: oh please...
By SunTzu on 5/12/2011 5:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
There is no such thing. Even the AP1000 will have a complete meltdown if you cannot cool the core, its just a question of how probable a situation is that will make cooling impossible. Even with a negative thermal coefficient of reactivity, the core will keep producing heat after you SCRAM the reactor. I think the AP1000 produces around 7% of peak heat output in the moments directly after a scram, and will keep producing heat for 2-3 years afterwards. (Of course, in an ideal situation you can remove the fuel rods long before that and put it in storage.)


RE: oh please...
By Solandri on 5/12/2011 9:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
MIT NSE put together a nice chart of the residual heat generated.
http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/what-is-decay-heat/

It's about 7% right after SCRAM. It drops to:
2.25% in 4 minutes
1% after about 5 hours
0.61% in 1 day
0.35% in 1 month
0.21% in 1 year

Do note though that an AP1000 reactor is supposed to generate about 1000 MW of electricity. That translates into about 3000 MW of thermal energy generated when operating, so 0.21% after a year translates into 6.3 MW.

Water has a heat capacity of 4.187 kJ/kgK and a heat of vaporization of 2270 kJ/kg. So if you're dumping cooling water at 20 degrees C and venting it as 100 C steam, you'd need 6300 kJ/s / (4.187 kJ/kgK * 80 K + 2270 kJ/kg) = 2.4 kg per second of water being vaporized. In a day, that's 209 tons of water being vaporized. So it's vital that there be some sort of secondary cooling system to recondense the steam back into water.

The passive cooling capacity of an AP1000 reactor basically amounts to a huge tank of water which can cool it without human intervention for a while (I don't recall how long). It's not an end-all solution, it's a stopgap meant to tide things over until you can fix/implement other cooling systems. I believe pebble bed reactors are the only design which have truly passive safety (and that's only maintained as long as you can keep the main thermal chamber sealed from outside oxygen - if oxygen gets it, the graphite coating starts burning and you have a really big problem).

On the flip side, you have to ask what level of risk is acceptable? Nothing in life is risk-free. Currently, you're more likely to die from a random lightning strike than from a nuclear accident. While all this hand-wringing over passive safety and possible accidents is well-intentioned, it's counterproductive if fear leads you to choose a less effective and more dangerous power generation technology (anything other than nuclear) just because their dangers are not as well publicized.


RE: oh please...
By randomly on 5/13/2011 9:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
The AP1000 can go 3 days after a SCRAM on the water in the passive cooling tank. Unlike the Fukushima reactors there is no need to inject water under high pressure into the reactor vessel itself so you do not need a high pressure pump system.

Natural convection loops transfer the decay heat from the core to the containment dome and the water tank supplies water that is sprayed on the outside of the dome to cool it. The water tank is at ambient pressure and you can just refill it with a hose if you need to. Just about any water will do since it never enters the reactor containment or core.

Everything is gravity fed so no electrical power is required at all to maintain cooling for as long as needed.

Nuclear reactor designs have come a long way in the half a century since the current crop of reactors in this country were designed. Comparing Fukushima and Three Mile Island era reactors to modern reactors is like comparing Edsels to modern day cars. Modern reactors are fundamentally better designed.
Nobody is proposing we build more Edsels.

Besides pebble bed reactors, molten salt reactors can also be designed to be completely passively safe. Requiring no power or even water for cooling. You can just turn them off and walk away from them and they will be fine indefinitely. They also can't get out of control as the basic physics of the thermal expansion from increasing temperature shuts down the reaction automatically with no intervention.


RE: oh please...
By MozeeToby on 5/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: oh please...
By Irene Ringworm on 5/13/2011 3:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
Do you check that your e-brake is working every time you get in the car? Once a week? How long until your failure to check the e-brake constitutes a "systemic failure"?


RE: oh please...
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: oh please...
By Aikouka on 5/12/2011 4:01:27 PM , Rating: 3
I believe the reason why this is being brought up now is that a long delay such as that could have proven quite problematic a couple weeks ago. During the severe tornadoes in northern Alabama, Brown's Ferry actually lost a significant amount of power and had to rely on emergency cooling/generators ( http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_ne... ). Fortunately, everything went well at the plant, but I believe it's events like Fukushima that are making us take a hard look at ensuring maintenance and safety protocols are being followed properly. That faulty valve could have possibly caused problems during last month's tornadoes, and I don't think the NRC wants to take chances.


RE: oh please...
By Cr0nJ0b on 5/12/2011 6:57:28 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not an opponent of nuclear power. I see it's potential and its risks. All I would say to the original poster, is that in my mind, there can't be too much safety when it comes to nuclear power plants. They have more destructive power than any other modern utility (other than the media) and the aftermath of an accident can take many many years to repair.

Whether it's because of fukishima, or the tornados or because some DOE guy got a bee in his bonnet, I'm happy that they are looking closely at these facilities. Keep up the work...make them safer.


RE: oh please...
By Solandri on 5/12/2011 9:41:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
All I would say to the original poster, is that in my mind, there can't be too much safety when it comes to nuclear power plants. They have more destructive power than any other modern utility (other than the media) and the aftermath of an accident can take many many years to repair.

The power generation accident which caused the most damage and most fatalities in history was the failure of a hydroelectric dam. It makes Chernobyl look like roundoff error. A quarter million people killed, 6 million buildings destroyed or damaged, 11 million people displaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#1975_Floo...


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki