During Palisades refueling shutdown, flaws discovered in control rod drive housings

[madokie]

Another issue with the same plant as Kristopher posted here http://www.democraticunderground.com/112765708

Nuclear Power Plant's shutdown for refueling and maintenance, flaws were found in more than a dozen of the control rod drive mechanism housings, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported Jan. 30.

The Covert Township nuclear power plant was removed from service Jan. 19. The inspections took place over the past several days and Entergy Corp., which owns Palisades, reported the flaws to the NRC Jan. 29.

Flaws were found in 17 of the 45 CRDM housings, the NRC said. However, there is no evidence that a leak occurred before the Jan. 19 shutdown, spokeswomen for both the NRC and Entergy Corp. said. The NRC said that the issue had no adverse affect on the public's safety or of the power plant's employees.

"There was no evidence of leakage before the shutdown," said Viktoria Mitlyng, senior public relations officer for the NRC."The plant was already shut down for a refueling outage when the CRDM housing exams were performed and remains shut down as the refueling outage work continues.

"

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/01/crdm_housing_issues_discovered.html

Could it be that these damn things are wearing out? Naw surely not, they're designed to last forever and ever, RIGHT? dm

[kristopher]

1. "human health was outside the scope of their assessments" says NRC

A stunning statement by Union of Concerned Scientists staff nuclear expert David Lochbaum:

"After reviewing the 300-plus page draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the first U.S. nuclear plant seeking a 20-year license extension, I asked the NRC why they had not addressed potential human health consequences, aside from a single, short paragraph about electromagnetic fields from the transmission lines. I will never forget and never understand their answer - human health was outside the scope of their assessments. I commend the World Business Academy's efforts to get human health issues back inside the scope of governmental officials."

human health was outside the scope of their assessments

I understand the bureaucratic compartmentalization that can lead to an assignment of responsibility for investigating the heath consequences of plant operations to an agency different than the one responsible for licensing. But to not have those two agencies clearly identified and working in tandem is nothing short of criminal.

"...the NRC ... had not addressed potential human health consequences, aside from a single, short paragraph about electromagnetic fields from the transmission lines ... human health was outside the scope of their assessments."

[FBaggins]

2. It's hardly "stunning" that Lochbaum would spin it that way.

You can perhaps be forgiven for not understanding it, but Lochbaum is either deeply ignorant of something that he should understand... or he does understand it and is intentionally dishonest.

Of course there's little to no mention of health impacts in the EIS... because that isn't what an EIS is for (thus it's "outside the scope&quot according to 10 CFR Part 51.

But 10 CFR Part 54 also requires public health and safety analysis in order to be relicensed. It just isn't part of the EIS - and there are separate hearings.

I understand the bureaucratic compartmentalization that can lead to an assignment of responsibility for investigating the heath consequences of plant operations to an agency different than the one responsible for licensing.

Ah! So you didn't fall for his implication that health impacts weren't considered as part of relicensing... you just misunderstood the "outside the scope of their assessments" (Lochbaum's wording... not necessarily that of the NRC) to mean that it was inclusive of all assessments (rather than those for the EIS) -and that some other agency must be involved.

That isn't the case. It's the NRC in both cases... but one is a part 51 hearing and the other is a part 54 hearing.

Is that less-than-efficient? Yup! Most of the government harmonized human health implications into environmental impact analysis some time ago, but that doesn't work when we're talking about the NRC. Remember that there are anti-nukes (Lochbaum being one of them) who have a vested interest in maximizing the number of hearings and the associated time involved. Any chance to delay a license or add an expense to the process is something that they'll support.

[kristopher]

5. Where do you get the information and why not provide a proper reference?

2 problems with your reply.
First, your history of distorting information as it passes from the source through your keyboard to the forum is legend, Baggins.
Second, is the history of accuracy of the professional watchdogs vs the nuclear industry itself.

Time and again we've seen nuclear industry claims crumble as time vindicates the critics. Take for example, the present cost of a reactor - who was correct and who was shown to be wrong? You can't blame that on those pesky environmentalists, either; the nuclear industry got everything they asked for and then a lot more so their projections were shown to be bald faced lies.

It is endless with the nuclear village - anything that is negative about the nuclear industry is claimed to be a fabrication, distortion or result of actions by someone who hates nuclear. The truth is the freaking technology is a loser and it empowers the ethically bankrupt.

[FBaggins]

3. Which "these damn things"?

If you mean the reactors... no. If you mean wear items that are designed to be replaced as part of ongoing maintenance? Sure.

But that's like complaining about a 40-50-year-old military plane (P-3, B-52, KC-135) as "wearing out" because parts need replacing. They're no more "designed to last forever" than any other system... but with regular maintenance, they can last a LONG time.

When they talk about a "refueling and maintenance" shutdown... what did you think "maintenance" consisted of? They identified the potential issue over a decade ago and beefed up the inspection regime for those parts... including a plan to replace them even with minor amounts of wear.

[kristopher]

4. Reactors in general have delivered far worse performance than advertised - while they're young

If you like we can take another look at Shrader-Frechette's write up of the actual frequency of core-melts vs the projected frequency derived from clearly biased probabilistic risk assessments accomplished within the nuclear village and used to mislead the gullible.

You have absolutely no basis on which to predict good results from refurbishment and extended operation of the nuclear fleet except the same discredited methodology sprinkled liberally with golden hopium.