It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
The cure for pollution is dilution.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I am a firm believer in strict regulation of any nuclear power plant, as I believe I have alluded to earlier. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the US version of that regulation, and they do a pretty good job of ensuring that nuclear plants are built and operated to strict codes of design and conduct. The nuclear power industry in the US runs scared of these governmental bulldogs, and with good reason. They have no qualms about closing a plant on the slightest safety concern if they feel it is warranted.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
"In short, Fukushima could not happen here. The designs are far safer"
Originally posted by TheRedneck
"Contrast that with TEPCO... they paid off government officials, had free reign to operate as they saw fit, were able to cover up radiation leaks, and regularly endangered the lives of their workers to keep the truth of their operations from being revealed."
radioactive isotopes bio-accumulate
The NRC is known for there re nonchalant attitude towards utility companies.
There are 23 Mark 1 Boiling water reactors in the US of exactly the same design as the Fukushima units with lower earthquake resistance standards.
One of the NRC Chairmen recently quit because his opinion was that the NRC had been bought out by the nuclear industry
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
Bio-accumulation is not dilution. It is the opposite of dilution. My statement stands: if the radiation is diluted sufficiently, its ability to cause damage is reduced to the point of being inconsequential.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actions and events speak louder to me than propaganda.
WASHINGTON (September 29. 2010) – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) routinely fails to enforce its regulations prohibiting nuclear power plants from leaking radioactively contaminated water, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report, “Regulatory Roulette: The NRC’s Inconsistent Oversight of Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plants,” found that the NRC ignored more than two dozen contaminated water releases that have occurred since 2006. The agency did not issue any fines or impose any sanctions for these federal safety requirement violations.
The NRC has breached its contract with the public by repeatedly tolerating unmonitored and uncontrolled leaks of radioactively contaminated water into the ground and nearby waterways. For years, the NRC sporadically sanctioned plant owners for violations of regulations. There was little correlation between the severity of the violation and whether a sanction was issued. But in all 27 cases in which plants accidentally released radioactive materials over the past four years, the NRC has allowed plant owners to violate these regulations with impunity.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
In the end, even though massive errors were made and a meltdown occurred, there were no deaths, no injuries, and no substantial impact on surrounding communities.
A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Brown's Ferry shut down without an issue, because the diesel fuel was stored properly, a major concern to the NRC. Fukushima's fuel was contaminated with seawater due to improper storage, and therefore the generators could not be used to complete the SCRAM process.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
Yes, there are. I wish all the plants were the PWR design rather than the BWR, but it does no one any good to worry about what already is.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
As to "lower earthquake standards"... that requirement is not static. The seismic conditions used are based on the largest earthquake in the last 100 years, and the level that can be withstood is 1.0 above that recorded level. The department I worked in in the 1980s was directly involved with these seismic calculations, and the NRC reviewed EVERY SINGLE calculation. Fukushima, based on reports, shortened the historical record specifically to avoid using a massive earthquake as the basis.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
There are probably abuses of power within the NRC. ... The level of abuse in the NRC, however, has a record of being some of the most minor in terms of allowing proper operation of the organization.
I understand that they are opposites that's why I pointed it out. You said one thing and i gave a reason for it being wrong.
How about these events?
This statement is not true and disingenuous sense we are only 33 years out and the full effects of genetic damage don't present them selves for up to 60 years and if damage was done sex cells effects might not show up for generations.
If you only look at cancer and don't do it long enough you wont really find anything. Cancer is just one effect of radiation. Heart defects and heart disease is another major effect. But nobody takes those things into account.
All three of the Diachi units completed SCRAM.
Are you serious? You really believe that?
Nature can over come any design basis humans build any building to and its immature to think other wise.
Sorry but when the sitting chairmen resigns because he says that the organization is not only bought out buy the industry it regulates but is also largely made up of the industry I'm going to believe him.
I indicated that the majority of damage would be in Japan, with decreasing effects as one moves outward from the source of the radioactive contaminants. Do you disagree with this?
Pilgrim does store spent fuel in a pool on-site, but that is simply because legislators keep blocking attempts to move it elsewhere. There have been no serious reported leaks. I will admit that I am a bit concerned about this plant, but so far it has remained stable.
Salem is a PWR plant. Leaks are simply water, not radioactive water. Radioactive water never exits the secondary containment in a PWR design.
Vermont Yankee has had a few leaks, but all have been repaired. There was a recent discovery of a small amount of tritium, below Federal reporting levels, but it is being investigated. In any case, tritium is an indicator that there is a minor leak, but is not itself an indication of catastrophic failure.
It is a byproduct of neutron bombardment of boron (used in coolant), not a direct product of nuclear fission.
None of the plants listed in that report have any history of severe violations... only of minor maintenance issues and minor violations that have been (or are being) addressed.
The latter category did not occur; the former is desirable. The only thing in question is the cellular damage over time issue, and after 33 years I believe any problem would have shown up by now. We are talking in excess of a generation, after all.
BLATANTLY untrue! They attempted SCRAM; completion would mean the nuclear cores were cold and inert; obviously they were not!
Now if you want to propose an operable plan for replacing all the BWR reactors with PWR designs, count me in.
Spent fuel is extremely hot in the instant of time it is removed from the reactor, as it is emitting large amounts of radiation and is still generating quiet a bit of heat. It must be kept under water for a period of time after it is removed, eventually it will be able to be offloaded to dry-storage. Even if there were another place to store the fuel, it would likely stay on site to cool for a period of time, but wouldn't accumulate over time in this pool.
In PWR plants the primary loop never exits the primary containment. However, the secondary loop does. For engineering reasons, the main condenser is not powered by the emergency DC power, hence cooling the reactor to cold shutdown without off-site power involves venting steam directly into the atmosphere. If there were a leak in the steam generators this would involve venting a tiny amount of radioactivity into the environment. There are also likely other pathways.
It is a direct product of nuclear fission. Also boron isn't used in the coolant of BWRs, but it can be used in the control rods.
Scramming a reactor only shuts down the self-sustaining fission reaction, but it does not imply that the reactor will be cool or will not be generating massive amounts of decay heat.
It is likely the reactors shut down only several seconds after the earthquake started, when computer systems detected the shaking. The will fuel still generate a significant amount of heat immediately afterwards, about 8% of the initial output. Assuming a 3500 megawatt (thermal) reactor, that's 280 MW. After 15 minutes that has dropped to about 2% of the initial output (70 MW).
If that heat isn't taken away, the pressure will rise to the point where steam needs to be vented. If the fuel is uncovered, the fuel will quickly get too hot then the zirconium fuel cladding reacts with water, creating hydrogen gas. Most interesting with Fukushima, is why a hydrogen explosion occurred, I was under the impression reactors today had been retrofitted with passive hydrogen recombiners and proper venting to prevent an explosion. Either the reactors were not fitted with them or something unexpected happened. Also the mark 1 containment is known to be rather weak.
In general; the BWR is not any less safe than the PWR.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
~continued~
Scramming a reactor only shuts down the self-sustaining fission reaction, but it does not imply that the reactor will be cool or will not be generating massive amounts of decay heat.
SCRAM also implies the continued cooling to safe levels. Insertion of the control rods is only the first stage. Heat is still produced until the free neutrons are either absorbed or release their energy. Thus the need for power backups to operate coolant systems until excess heat is removed from the core.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Pilgrim is storing fuel as well past the point it could safely be moved, but this is not for lack of desire to move it; it is for lack of anywhere to move it to.
Installing dry-cask storage infrastructure at a plant with two reactors would cost between $20 million and $30 million, and annual costs for buying casks, loading them and running a dry-cask storage facility are $7 million to $10 million, according to Exelon.
Originally posted by COBzz
Most interesting with Fukushima, is why a hydrogen explosion occurred, I was under the impression reactors today had been retrofitted with passive hydrogen recombiners and proper venting to prevent an explosion. Either the reactors were not fitted with them or something unexpected happened. Also the mark 1 containment is known to be rather weak.
SCRAM is the process of inserting the control rods. It usually only takes seconds, Cold Shutdown is the state achieved when the water reaches 95C and the pressure inside the PRV is at ~100 kPa.
Correct but what they could do but are not because they don't want to spend the money on it is move the fuel into dry cast storage.