Monday, September 4, 2017

The Wisdom of Nuclear Plant Operating in a Flood

Subtitle: Very Risky Activity to Operate A Nuclear Plant with No Evacuations Possible

Very recently, a Category 4 Hurricane, Harvey 2017, came ashore on 25 August near Corpus Christi, Texas in the United States.   The weather fronts were such that the hurricane moved inland only approximately 50 miles, stalled there, then moved southward back over the Gulf of Mexico on 28 August.   The weather front north of the hurricane weakened, such that the hurricane or tropical storm system then moved parallel to the Texas coast in a north-easterly direction before crossing the shore near the Texas-Louisiana border and moving northward up the Mississippi River valley.   
Figure 1.  Location of South Texas Nuclear Plant and Houston
source: google maps


The slow movement over land and over water for the second time resulted in heavy rains over much of southeast Texas and parts of Louisiana.  In many Texas locations, records for rainfall in one storm event were broken.   Just over 50 inches of rain fell in at least one location.   Rivers swelled, overflowed, and many set new records for high levels.  Property was flooded in thousands of locations.   A set of two artificial dams just to the west of Houston, Texas (Barker and Addicks dams) were filled to the danger point.  The water operating authorities chose to release water from the reservoirs behind the dams to prevent catastrophic dam failures.   That water release flooded thousands more homes. 

Many roads were underwater in Houston and surrounding areas, including major freeways.  

No evacuation order was issued for the large, populous city of Houston, Texas.  Instead, the mayor advised the residents to shelter in place.   There were, however, a number of mandatory and voluntary evacuations ordered in other smaller cities and towns.    

The mayor stated publicly that it was impossible to safely evacuate 3-4 million people in such short time, citing the recent failed evacuation attempt for Hurricane Rita.   There were also many deaths on the highways in that failed evacuation attempt. 

Meanwhile, with all the flooding over such a widespread area, the 2,700 MW twin-reactor nuclear power plant located only 70 miles southeast of Houston's downtown area, kept running at full power.  (see figure 1)  The South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company chose to keep running, at least in part to further their reputation as the nuclear plant with the highest on-stream factor in the US. 

The question explored here is, was it wise to keep the STP (South Texas Project) operating at all during the flooding period of several days, when it would be impossible to evacuate the population located downwind of the plant if a massive radiation release event occurred. 

The fundamental issue is that nuclear plants certainly can meltdown, as at least five have done so in the past.  (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and three each at Fukushima-Dai-ichi).   All nuclear plants must have an evacuation plan, per government requirements.  That evacuation plan is predicated on the affected population having the means to evacuate.  

Clearly, the huge area in south and east Texas had no means to evacuate after the flooding began.  

It appears that the STP made it through the flooding and high winds, but were they simply lucky this time?   A look at the events that cause nuclear plants to shut down suddenly, without warning, shows that even the smallest problem can result in a shutdown.   A pump can breakdown, a valve can stick, a steam generator tube can rupture, just to list a few. 

It is also necessary to consider whether the electricity grid was or would be stressed if the STP shut down.  The Texas grid operator is ERCOT, for Electric Reliability Council of Texas.  It certainly appears that ERCOT did not need the power from the nuclear plant, with so much of the service area without power due to the winds and flooding.  

Instead, it appears the nuclear plant owners and operators placed their reputation for onstream days, for high onstream factor, above the safety of the public in the fourth largest metropolis in the country.  Knowing the city could not evacuate even if they tried, they kept running the reactors, pumping electricity into the grid when nearly one-fourth or more of the state's electric customers could not take power even though they wanted to. 

And, why would a business take such a risk?  In this case, it is entirely due to the federal government taking almost all the financial liability from harm and damage created by a radiation incident.    The Price-Anderson Act pays for all damages above a stated amount.  The nuclear plant itself would not pay for much, at all.  (see link to SLB articles on nuclear and Price-Anderson Act)

Surely the entire liability scheme must be re-examined in light of these events.   

For anyone other than a nuclear plant that is protected by the Price-Anderson Act provisions, operating with reckless disregard for human life, or operating in a normal manner that is reckless in the circumstances, can be a criminal act. 

The nuclear power plants must be shut down, and as soon as possible.   Millions of lives are at stake, or damaged forever for those that survive a nuclear meltdown with high winds that blow the radioactive particles into their homes, their businesses, and their very lungs.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved




Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here
Renewable Energy...........here 



Societal Benefits from Government Subsidy

Subtitle:  Subsidy Programs Can Have Great Benefits

On this Labor Day holiday in the US, below is a partial list of government projects and programs that contribute greatly to the ease of life in the US.   Our labors and our lives are much easier due to these. 

Interstate Highway System -- entirely government funded, more than 20 years duration; saved countless lives in fewer automobile collisions, saved countless gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel as cars and trucks no longer were required to stop and creep through every small town.  Efficiencies in transportation are ongoing; savings in travel time also. 
Figure 1.   Union Pacific Railroad land grant map
Library of Congress


Rural Electrification Act - brought electricity to almost all of America's farms and ranches over a few decades.   Utilities could not afford to build the transmission and distribution lines; the government stepped up with the money. 

Hoover Dam - entirely built with government funds and materials; the dam is still providing water storage, boating and other recreation, flood control, and hydroelectric power at very low prices.  

Bonneville Power Administration - BPA built dams and hydroelectric power plants in Washington State; providing decades of low-cost electricity.  

TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority - Like the BPA above, the TVA built a number of dams in the Tennessee River Valley to control flooding, store water, and generate hydroelectric power at very low costs. 

Land-Grant Railroads - the US government made free land one of the incentives for railroad companies to build tracks across the US in the late 1800s; the railroads received 10 square miles of land for every mile of track they installed.   Connecting the country by rail coast-to-coast had enormous economic benefits that endure to this day.   See Figure 1. 

Land-Grant Universities - the government granted land to each state to build a college or university; approximately 20 million graduates have and had better opportunities with their college degrees. 

GI Bill - Government paid for college costs for military veterans under the GI Bill program; similar versions still exist; many thousands of veterans have better lives due to this program.


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved




Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here
Renewable Energy...........here 

Nuclear Subsidy - Reprocessing Spent Fuel

Subtitle:  Yet Another Subsidy the Nuclear Power Industry Enjoys

The costs for spent nuclear fuel handling, storage, and disposal are yet another subsidy the commercial nuclear power industry enjoys.   This is estimated by General Accounting Office as $25 billion. 

Nuclear power for commercial electricity generation enjoys quite a number of government subsidies, including outright subsidies from state governments, construction loan guarantees for new reactors, almost complete indemnity from harm due to radiation releases (Price-Anderson Act), no lawsuits allowed during construction (with a minor exception), billing customers for construction funds, relaxing existing safety standards rather than enforcing them that would shut down a plant, government payment of 2.3 cents per kWh for 10 years for any new nuclear plant, and spent fuel disposal.  (see link to SLB article "US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized")  

Spent fuel handling and storage is an expensive, and critical aspect of nuclear power that is a burden to present and future generations.   From the NRC, the basics of the problem are shown below.   The key point is that approximately 80,000 metric tonnes (88,000 US tons) already exist in storage at more than 100 nuclear reactors in the US.   Approximately 60 percent more than that (140,000 metric tonnes, 154,000 US tons) is anticipated to ultimately exist in the US, if no new reactors are built and the others run as anticipated.  The US government has the burden of either reprocessing the spent fuel, or long-term storage of the highly radioactive waste.   The cost for the US to deal with the spent fuel is estimated at approximately $25 billion.  

Below is a list of spent fuel storage key points from the NRC: 

(see link to https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html)

Key Points:
Figure 1.   Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant
 Dry Cask Spent Fuel Storage (red arrow)
photo: Google Maps 2017


1. All U.S. nuclear power plants store spent nuclear fuel in "spent fuel pools." These pools are robust constructions made of reinforced concrete several feet thick, with steel liners. The water is typically about 40 feet deep, and serves both to shield the radiation and cool the rods.

2. As the pools near capacity, utilities move some of the older spent fuel into "dry cask" storage. Fuel is typically cooled at least 5 years in the pool before transfer to cask. NRC has authorized transfer as early as 3 years; the industry norm is about 10 years.  (see Figure 1 for photo of dry cask storage area at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant)

3. The NRC believes spent fuel pools and dry casks both provide adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment. Therefore there is no pressing safety or security reason to mandate earlier transfer of fuel from pool to cask.

4. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NRC issued orders to plant operators requiring several measures aimed at mitigating the effects of a large fire, explosion, or accident that damages a spent fuel pool. These were meant to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack or plane crash; however, they would also be effective in responding to natural phenomena such as tornadoes, earthquakes or tsunami. These mitigating measures include:

a. Controlling the configuration of fuel assemblies in the pool to enhance the ability to keep the fuel cool and recover from damage to the pool.

b. Establishing emergency spent fuel cooling capability.

c. Staging emergency response equipment nearby so it can be deployed quickly

5. According to the Congressional Research Service (using NEI data), there were 62,683 metric tons of commercial spent fuel accumulated in the United States as of the end of 2009.  (approximately 80,000 metric tonnes by end of year 2017)

a. Of that total, 48,818 metric tons – or about 78 percent – were in pools.

b. 13,856 metric tons – or about 22 percent – were stored in dry casks.

c. The total increases by 2,000 to 2,400 tons annually.  (end key points from NRC)

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant - spent fuel storage

The particulars of spent fuel storage, both dry cask and spent fuel pool, are shown below for Diablo Canyon (DCPP). (source:  NRC document ML111290158)

"Spent (used) fuel at DCPP is stored in two different systems:

Spent Fuel Pools - Wet Storage: Much of the spent fuel is stored in the Spent Fuel Pool, a
reinforced concrete structure with a stainless steel plate liner. Shielding and protection of the
spent fuel in the pools is provided by maintaining 23 feet of borated water over the spent fuel.

Heat is removed by a cooling system which constantly re-circulates the spent fuel pool water through heat exchangers. The base of the pools are below grade level, on bedrock, and the walls of lower portions of the pools are also below grade, such that the top of the spent fuel storage racks are near the exterior ground level to the east of the Auxiliary Building. DCPP has redundant capabilities to add water into the spent fuel pool – even with the loss of electrical power.

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) - Dry Storage: 

Older spent fuel is stored at the ISFSI in dry casks, which are totally sealed from the environment in a Multi-purpose Canister (MPC) that is constructed of stainless steel. The MPC is placed into a massive overpack that is over 20 feet tall, and is constructed out of two steel vessels, each 1 inch thick, with the space between the vessels filled with approximately 28 inches of concrete. The overpacks shield against radiation exposure and encapsulate and protect the MPCs. The dry casks are seismically qualified and anchored to a steel reinforced concrete pad over 7 feet thick.

The dry casks utilize a totally passive cooling system that requires no electricity or pumping to safely cool the fuel. Rather, the system uses naturally occurring convection to pull cool air in at the bottom and allow warmer air to exit the top of the cask like a chimney." 


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved



Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here
Renewable Energy...........here