Archive for the ‘Nukes’ Category

Nov. 03, 2012

BY JIM FUQUAY
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

One of the two reactors at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant near Glen Rose was shut down early Friday after a cooling pump overheated, the operator reported.

According to an event report filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Unit 1 was shut down manually at 1:42 a.m. because of "high temperature indications" in a motor bearing on one of four huge pumps that circulate cooling water around the reactor.

An alarm that warns of an improper level of oil for the pump also sounded, the report stated.

Dallas-based Luminant Generating, the plant’s operator, is "currently looking into a cause" of the pump problem, spokeswoman Ashley Barrie said.

The reactor had to be shut down to remove the pump for servicing, she said.

Luminant is "developing a maintenance plan to resolve the issue. We anticipate returning the unit to service as soon as this work is completed," Barrie said.

Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and a critic of using nuclear power to generate electricity, said that "anytime you manually shut a reactor down, it’s a big deal."

Although the sequence of events described in the NRC report sounded like the correct action, he said, "a manual trip is a nonroutine safety event."

Barrie said, "There was never any safety issue at the plant."

The Unit 1 reactor also experienced an unusual event Wednesday morning when a backup generator started unexpectedly. According to an NRC event report, a faulty power supply "was identified and further investigation/calibration will determine if other conditions contributed to the fault."

Barrie said, "The equipment malfunction that occurred on Wednesday is in no way tied to the manual trip" on Friday. The equipment that started the generator was replaced "and verified satisfactory through testing," she said.

Together, Comanche Peak’s two reactors can produce 2,300 megawatts of electricity. They are among the nation’s newest nuclear power plants, with Unit 1 going into operation in 1990 and Unit 2 in 1993, according to Luminant.

Unit 2 had been down several weeks for refueling and had just returned on line Friday morning, Barrie said. Nuclear reactors are typically refueled every 18 months, generally in spring and fall when temperatures are moderate and electricity demand is light.

Robbie Searcy, spokeswoman for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state’s largest power grid, said Unit 1’s sudden loss triggered automatic responses by big industrial users that agree to have their power interrupted to accommodate such events. ERCOT then calls on standby generators to replace the power the Comanche Peak unit had been providing to the grid.

It was fortunate Unit 1 went down in the early morning, when demand is especially low, Searcy said.

Jim Fuquay, 817-390-7552

Twitter: @jimfuquay

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

The Register Citizen

WASHINGTON (AP) — Part of a nuclear power plant was shut down late Monday while another plant — the nation’s oldest — was put on alert after waters from superstorm Sandy rose 6 feet above sea level.

One of the units at Indian Point, a plant about 45 miles north of New York City, was shut down around 10:45 p.m. because of external electrical grid issues said Entergy Corp., which operates the plant. The company said there was no risk to employees or the public, and the plant was not at risk due to water levels from the Hudson River, which reached 9 feet 8 inches and was subsiding. Another unit at the plant was still operating at full power.

The oldest U.S. nuclear power plant, New Jersey’s Oyster Creek, was already out of service for scheduled refueling. But high water levels at the facility, which sits along Barnegat Bay, prompted safety officials to declare an "unusual event" around 7 p.m. About two hours later, the situation was upgraded to an "alert," the second-lowest in a four-tiered warning system.

Conditions were still safe at Oyster Creek, Indian Point and all other U.S. nuclear plants, said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees plant safety.

A rising tide, the direction of the wind and the storm’s surge combined to raise water levels in Oyster Creek’s intake structure, the NRC said. The agency said that water levels are expected to recede within hours and that the plant, which went online in 1969 and is set to close in 2019, is watertight and capable of withstanding hurricane-force winds.

The plant’s owner, Exelon Corp., said power was also disrupted in the station’s switchyard, but backup diesel generators were providing stable power, with more than two weeks of fuel on hand.

In other parts of the East Coast, nuclear plants were weathering the storm without incident.

Inspectors from the NRC, whose own headquarters and Northeast regional office were closed for the storm, were manning all plants around the clock. The agency dispatched extra inspectors or placed them on standby in five states, equipped with satellite phones to ensure uninterrupted contact.

Nuclear power plants are built to withstand hurricanes, airplane collisions and other major disasters, but safety procedures call for plants to be shut down when hurricane-force winds are present, or if water levels nearby exceed certain flood limits.

At the Salem and Hope Creek plants in Hancocks Bridge, N.J., which together produce enough power for about 3 million homes per day, officials were watching for sustained winds of 74 mph or greater that would trigger taking the plants offline. The nearby Delaware River posed another hazard if water levels exceed 99.5 feet, compared with a normal level of 89 feet.

Joe Delmar, a spokesman for Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., said that only essential employees had been asked to report to work but that current projections were that the plants would not have to close. One of the units at Salem had already been offline due to regular refueling and maintenance.

In Lusby, Md., the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant was operating at full power — enough to power more than 1 million homes. Additional staff, both onsite and off, were called in to prepare for the storm. Safety officials there will take the plant offline if sustained winds exceed 75 mph or water levels rise more than 10 feet above normal sea level.

At Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna plant in Salem Township, officials were ready to activate their emergency plan, a precursor to taking the plant offline, if sustained winds hit 80 mph.

"Our top concern is ensuring that the plants are in a safe condition, that they are following their severe weather procedures," said Diane Screnci of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. She said that even though the agency’s headquarters and regional office had been closed, its incident response center was staffed, with other regions ready to lend a hand if necessary.

At the Millstone nuclear power complex on Connecticut’s shoreline, officials said earlier Monday they were powering down one of the two reactors to 75 percent of maximum output to maintain stability of the electric grid. Millstone spokesman Ken Holt said the grid’s stability could be affected if the unit was operating at 100 percent and suddenly went offline, which isn’t expected to happen.

Some 60 million people in 13 states plus the District of Columbia get their power from PJM, the largest regional power grid in the U.S. Contingency plans call for power to be brought in from other areas to replace power lost if a nuclear plant reduces output or goes offline.

"It’s done instantaneously," said Paula DuPont-Kidd, a spokeswoman for the grid. "Even if multiple plants go offline at the same time, we’d have to see how adjustments would be made, but for the most part we plan for that scenario."

In August 2011, multiple nuclear plants shut down due to Hurricane Irene, with others reducing power.

Although nuclear plants are built for resilience, their operations get more complicated when only emergency personnel are on duty or if external electricity gets knocked out, as often happens during hurricanes.

"When external power is not available, you have to use standby generators," said Sudarshan Loyalka, who teaches nuclear engineering at University of Missouri. "You just don’t want to rely on backup power."

October 24, 2012

Louis Sahagun
Los Angeles Times

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced plans Tuesday to launch a pilot epidemiological study of cancer risks near six nuclear power plants, including San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in north San Diego County.

The commission is acting out of growing concern that using uranium to produce electricity may be dangerous even without accidents at nuclear plants. In addition, recent epidemiological studies in Germany and France suggest that the children living near nuclear reactors are twice as likely to develop leukemia.

The U.S. study will be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, which will also help the commission determine whether to extend the study to all 65 U.S. nuclear power plants and certain nuclear fuel sites.

The pilot study will investigate cancer rates in each census tract within a 30-mile radius of the nuclear facilities, and assess cancers in children younger than 15 whose mothers lived near a nuclear facility during pregnancy. About 1 million people live within five miles of operating nuclear plants in the United States, and more than 45 million live within 30 miles, nuclear regulatory officials said.

The study will cost about $2 million and is to begin later this year, with the results available in 2014, commission spokesman Scott Burnell said. Before beginning, researchers will meet with communities near the plants to explain how the study will be conducted, Burnell said.

The academy chose sites that provide a broad representation of engineering designs and operating histories in states that have a variety of data retrieval systems in cancer registries.

The study area around the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which has been out of commission since January because of equipment problems, encompasses 2.4 million people in more than 50 cities, including Laguna Beach, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Tustin, Lake Elsinore, Temecula, Oceanside, Escondido, Solana Beach and Camp Pendleton.

The last time officials assessed cancer rates near nuclear power plants was in 1990. The National Cancer Institute studied cancer risks posed by the 104 licensed reactors the commission governed at that time. The study concluded that the health risks, if any, were too small to be measured.

The commission has been relying on the results of that study ever since to inform the public about cancer mortality rates near nuclear reactors.

"I’m very pleased about this pilot study," said Roger Johnson, a retired neuroscience professor and member of the nonprofit environmental group San Clemente Green, which has raised safety and health concerns about San Onofre.

"Most people are focused on accidents at nuclear power plants," Johnson said. "They don’t realize that they store tons of radioactive material and emit low levels of radioactive waste into the atmosphere."

louis.sahagun(at) latimes.com

September 12, 2012

by Nick Swartsell
Texas Tribune

Andrews County and the state of Texas are finally bringing in money from a controversial radioactive waste dump after years of political fighting and legal wrangling over the project.

Waste Control Specialists, which runs the radioactive dump, has paid the county $630,000 and the state $3.4 million as part of an agreement that allowed the company to perform disposal operations in Andrews County. The dump began accepting out-of-state waste on July 31, but the fight over the facility began in 2003, when the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1567, allowing the company to dispose of radioactive waste.

"This community put its faith in our company," Waste Control Specialists CEO William Lindquist said in a prepared statement. "There would be no Texas Solution — no Texas Compact Disposal Facility — without the leadership and citizens of Andrews County. I’ve never been prouder to write a check than I was today."

Waste Control Specialists, or WCS — owned by political mega-donor Harold Simmons — is one of the only private companies in the country that accepts radioactive waste from other states. Its Andrews County site has drawn scorn from environmental advocates since WCS began seeking licenses from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for waste disposal. The company received licenses from TCEQ in 2007 and 2008, sparking controversy that led to the resignation of three TCEQ engineers and geologists, who argued that the Andrews County site was geologically unfit for radioactive waste disposal.

Despite the controversy, construction of the waste facility began in 2009, when Andrews County narrowly passed a bond issue to loan WCS $75 million to build the site. WCS got another boost when the Texas Legislature passed a 2011 bill allowing waste from outside Texas to be disposed there, provoking a new round of protests from environmental advocates.

The payment to Andrews County amounts to about 3 percent of the county’s $21 million 2011-12 budget. The money represents a month’s worth of work for WCS, which will make payments to the county and Texas quarterly from now on. Judge Richard Dolgener, who heads the Andrews County Commissioners Court, said the county hasn’t decided how it will use the money, which will go into the county’s general fund. Dolgener said Andrews County has budgeted for $1.5 million from WCS over the next year but that the number was uncertain. "We may not get that," he said, "or we may get more."

Environmental advocates aren’t pleased with the latest milestone.

"TCEQ should never have granted WCS a license in the first place," said Texas Sierra Club Conservation Director Cyrus Reed. "There are still serious questions about the hydrogeology under the site."

Reed said the Sierra Club will keep fighting WCS in court, where two separate cases the organization has brought against WCS’s licenses are in the appeals process.

February 23, 2012

by Paul Theobald
Texas Tribune

The political action committee of Dallas billionaire waste magnate Harold Simmons admitted today that it messed up when it illegally donated $65,000 to candidates’ campaigns in 2011. Based on recommendations of the Texas Ethics Commission, WCS-Texas Solutions PAC is calling all 18 lawmakers who received funds and asking them to give the money back.

"We are working with the Ethics Commission now to get into full compliance," said PAC treasurer William Lindquist. He said the oversight that resulted in the violation was his responsibility.

The admission came Thursday after Texans for Public Justice filed a formal complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission alleging that the PAC illegally donated to 18 different Texas lawmakers last year. The violation, the group said, was that the PAC was funded by Simmons alone.

The Texas Elections Code requires that a PAC have at least 10 contributors before it makes a political contribution.

Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice, said his group discovered the violation during its routine processing of campaign contributions.

The donations went to 15 Republicans and three Democrats: Sens. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, and Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen, and Reps. Kelly Hancock, R-Fort Worth; Cindy Burkett, R-Mesquite; Mike “Tuffy” Hamilton, R-Mauriceville; Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton; Byron Cook, R-Corsicana; Myra Crownover, R-Lake Dallas; Drew Darby, R-San Angelo; Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth; Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi; Sid Miller, R-Stephenville; Wayne Smith, R-Baytown; Dan Branch, R-Dallas; Jessica Farrar, D-Houston; John Frullo, R-Lubbock; Patricia Harless, R-Spring; and Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth.

Few of the lawmakers knew about the alleged violation. A spokeswoman for Farrar said after she learned about the violation she made a donation to MECA in the same amount that she received. Hinojosa said he would return the full amount he received. Bonnen said that the PAC called and asked him to return the money, which he would do immediately.

Disclosure:
Harold Simmons is a major donor to The Texas Tribune.

Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.