Cracks found in critical reactor parts at Davis-Besse power plant

[Auggie]

Source: http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/

OAK HARBOR, Ohio -- Inspectors working at FirstEnergy Corp.'s Davis-Besse power plant near Toledo have uncovered the same kind of cracking in critical reactor lid parts that were the cause of massive corrosion found at the plant eight years ago.

In a routine report filed early today with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the company said inspectors using sophisticated ultrasonic instruments had found indications of cracking in 12 of the 69 metal tubes that carry control rods through the reactor lid.

Davis-Besse has been down since Feb. 28 for regular refueling and plant-wide inspections and maintenance. Workers late last week began instrument-assisted inspections of all 69 of the corrosion-resistant tubes, known as "nozzles" in the industry because they protrude from the reactor lid several feet and resemble nozzles.

Reactor operators electrically move control rods through the nozzles in and out of the radioactive reactor core at the bottom of the reactor to speed up or slow down the nuclear reaction. The Davis-Besse reactor is about 40 feet tall and 14 feet across, and holds about 87,000 gallons of boric acid-laced reactor coolant

Read more: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/03/cracks_found_in_critical_react.html

[CountAllVotes]

1. we need to build more of these now!

:sarcasm: :puke:

[Indydem]

2. Yes. Yes we do.

Do you want to reduce carbon emissions and increase the availability of electricity for green autos?

Then we need more nuclear power.

The whole point of this article is that routine inspections caught the problems; thats why they do routine inspections.

Do you honestly expect that after all these years, nothing will wear out, corrode, or break? The whole point of keeping an eye on this stuff is to find the small problems and fix them before they become even a medium sized problem.

[kristopher]

4. We get more electricity for less money with renewables...

Renewable resources are the largest potential, and the technologies are here and now to extract them. Nuclear is another bondoggle just like ethanol was/is.

Nuclear is, literally, a third rate option.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[FarCenter]

14. Interesting reference but it doesn't deal with cost

or the environmental impacts of manufacturing the wind or solar infrastructure.

See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/capacity/capacity.html for statistics on electrical energy generation.

Replacing the roughly 100,000 megawatts of existing nuclear generation (see the nuclear worksheet), would require 20,000 wind generators of the 5 Mwatt variety, and proportionately more if you consider the typical 2 or 3 Mwatt generators.

Solar photovoltaics require a lot of semiconductor cookery, at least some varieties of which are not environmentally friendly.

[kristopher]

26. That independent analysis includes all aspects you mentioned except cost

And here is information on cost.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x236298

"A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates!"

One of many...

[midnight]

16. I suppose for this suggestion to use renewables to happen, we have to stop

allowing the Exons to dictate energy policy in closed secret meetings?

[Javaman]

6. You mean build more with cracks?

No thanks.

[dencol]

10. You're drawing the wrong conclusion.

When faced with pollution that is killing us all, the solution is not to create more facilities where the most toxic substances known to man are collected and created.

[NickB79]

25. Except the pollution that is killing us isn't nuclear waste

It is CO2 from coal and oil.

It could be argued that excess CO2 is the most toxic substance known to man, not nuclear, since excess CO2 kills ENTIRE ECOSYSTEMS across the globe, altering the very chemistry of the air and oceans themselves, whereas even the Chernobyl meltdown didn't do that in it's immediate surroundings.

[Javaman]

52. Tell that to the Navajo's. nt

[Codeine]

53. The Navajo's what?

:shrug:

[Javaman]

56. Read up on the Navajos and uranium tillings. nt

[Codeine]

57. It was an apostrophe gag.

Never mind.

[pundaint]

19. +1, should've read this first, would have saved that typing below.

[AlbertCat]

30. Do you honestly expect that after all these years, nothing will wear out, corrode, or break?

This is a GREAT reason to build some more! Way to go!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:


And continue to ignore the waste problem...

[Zoeisright]

40. FAIL.

Do you honestly expect that nuclear energy, which produces poison we have no way to control, and is subsidized at the cost of BILLIONS of dollars, is the way to go over clean renewable energy?

If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

And there's no such thing as a 'small problem' in a nuclear power plant. That's pure fantasy.

[formercia]

3. Like we need more public debt to look forward to.

I'm glad they never built those Fast Breeder reactors. The fuel rods had bad welds before leaving the factory.

[closeupready]

22. Yes, this is a success story!

They caught the mistake! It made the papers! Success! :woohoo:

:sarcasm: :puke:

[scentopine]

41. hahaha, yes indeed. -nt

[snooper2]

55. yes, we do - no sarcasm required...

Looks like the inspection process did what it was supposed to do didn't it...

Every machine needs maint.

Bravo!

[kristopher]

59. They found it only because

You can read the NRC account here:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation/overview.html


And this is the Union of Concerned Scientists' take on it.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/acfnx8tzc.pdf
The reactor core at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant sits within a metal pot
designed to withstand pressures up to 2,500 pounds per square inch.
The pot -- called the reactor vessel -- has carbon steel walls nearly six
inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water
cooling the reactor contains boric acid that is highly corrosive to carbon
steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered with
3/16-inch thick stainless steel. But water routinely leaked onto the reactor
vessel's outer surface. Because the outer surface lacked a protective
stainless steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon steel
wall until it reached the backside of the inner liner. High pressure inside
the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity
formed by the boric acid. The stainless steel bent but did not break.
Cooling water remained inside the reactor vessel not because of thick
carbon steel but due to a thin layer of stainless steel. The plant's owner
ignored numerous warning signs spanning many years to create the
reactor with a hole in its head.

Workers repairing one of five cracked control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles at Davis-Besse discovered
extensive damage to the reactor vessel head. The reactor vessel head is the dome-shaped upper portion of the
carbon steel vessel housing the reactor core. It can be removed when the plant is shut down to allow spent
nuclear fuel to be replaced with fresh fuel. The CRDM nozzles connect motors mounted on a platform above the
reactor vessel head to control rods within the reactor vessel. Operators withdraw control rods from the reactor
core to startup the plant and insert them to shut down the reactor.
The workers found a large hole in the reactor vessel head next to CRDM nozzle #3. The hole was about six
inches deep, five inches long, and seven inches wide. The hole extended to within 1-1/2 inches of the adjacent
CRDM nozzle #11. The stainless steel liner welded to the inner surface of the reactor vessel head for protection
against boric acid was at the bottom of the hole. This liner was approximately 3/16-inch thick and had bulged
outward about 1/8-inch due to the high pressure (over one ton per square inch) inside the reactor vessel.


What could have happened?
A loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) occurs if the stainless steel liner fails or CRDM nozzle #3 is ejected. The water
cooling the reactor core quickly empties through the hole into the containment building. The containment building
is made of reinforced concrete designed to withstand the pressure surge from the flow through the break.

To compensate for the reactor water exiting through the hole, water inside the pressurizer (PZR) and the cold leg
accumulators flows into the reactor vessel. This initial makeup is supplemented by water from the Refueling Water
Storage Tank (RWST) delivered to the reactor vessel by the high, intermediate, and low pressure injection pumps.
The makeup water re-fills the reactor vessel and overflows out the hole in the reactor vessel head.
Approximately 30 to 45 minutes later, the RWST empties. Operators close valves between the pumps and the
RWST and open valves between the low pressure injection (RHR) pumps and the containment sump. Water
pouring from the broken reactor vessel head drains to the containment sump where the RHR pumps recycle it to
the reactor vessel. A cooling water system supplies water to the RHR heat exchanger shown to the left of the
RHR pump to remove heat generated by the reactor core.

On paper, that's how the safety systems would have functioned to protect the public. But the following examples
suggest that things might not have gone by the book:
The Three Mile Island nuclear plant experienced a loss of coolant accident in March 1979. Emergency
pumps automatically started to replace the water flowing out the leak. Operators turned off the pumps
because instruments falsely indicated too much water in the reactor vessel. Within two hours, the reactor
core overheated and melted, triggering the evacuation of nearly 150,000 people.

● At the Callaway nuclear plant in 2001, workers encountered problems while testing one of the emergency
pumps. Investigation revealed that a foam-like bladder inside the RWST was flaking apart. Water carried
chunks of debris to the pump where it blocked flow. The debris would have disabled all the emergency
pumps during an accident.

● At the Haddam Neck nuclear plant in 1996, the NRC discovered the piping carrying water from the RWST
to the reactor vessel was too small. It was long enough but it was not wide enough to carry enough water
during an accident to re-fill the reactor vessel in time to prevent meltdown. The plant operated for nearly 30
years with this undetected vulnerability.

● At several US and foreign nuclear power plants, including the Limerick nuclear plant 8 years ago, the force
of water/steam entering the containment building during a loss of coolant accident has blown insulation off
piping and equipment. The water carried that insulation and other debris into the containment sump. The
debris clogged the piping going to the emergency pumps much like hair clogs a bathtub drain. According to
a recent government report, 46 percent of US nuclear plants are very likely to experience blockage in the
containment sumps in event of a hole the size found at Davis-Besse opens up. For slightly larger holes, the
chances of failure increase to 82 percent.<1>


Thus, events at Davis-Besse may have gone by the book had the stainless steel failed or would have become the
subject of many books on the worst loss of coolant accident in US history.

[mbperrin]

5. This can't be true - they're so green!!!!

From the OP:

FirstEnergy had resisted an NRC-requested shutdown since the summer of 2001 to check for nozzle cracks, and when the corrosion was found, the federal agency initiated a major inspection of the entire power plant, keeping it shut down for two years at a cost to the company of at least $600 million. The company stopped reporting expenses at that number.


and:

The company eight years ago did not immediately and fully report the reactor lid's condition to the NRC. This time it has promptly reported the findings and vowed to make whatever repairs are necessary.


See? No worries - they're all honest and stuff now (well, except for reporting costs, but what they hey - can't give people the idea that this is the most fantastically expensive way to generate electricity, now, can we?)

[madmom]

9. "at a cost to the company" umm NO.. at a cost to First Energy customers! of which I am one.

[mbperrin]

11. Exactly! Like to know that cost? Sorry, na-na-na-na-NA-na!

Course they get the last laugh. All that nuclear waste is now being dumped right on top of my drinking water supply 30 miles from here in the USA's newest dump, built to receive all the material from all the dumps that leaked already!

[POAS]

58. Me too and I'm not a happy customer.

Seems to me this plant was just down for an extended period because of a hole in the containment structure, or is my old memory failing me?

[Doremus]

37. What they left out is that they did everything in their power to keep the inspectors

from finding the cracks. They blackballed the whistleblower and he was unable to find work in his profession any longer.

Oh yes, those steadfast caretakers of the public health should make us all feel much safer. :puke:

[beardown]

7. Cause by a wind turbine blade breaking off and hitting it.

Slamming wind power seems all the rage here now so I thought that I'd jump in and do my part, trendy as it may be.

Chances are that we are going to need a very diverse set of energy solutions to reduce the enormous amount of energy that we now get from carbon based providers. Barring any new energy technology showing up and saving the say, we'd all better accept that we're going to have new energy sources that we don't like or deal with the consequences of another generation hooked on fossil fuels.

[amandabeech]

60. That's about what it looks like from this keyboard.

We're going to need all the non-carbon energy that we can find, and some of it isn't going to be pretty in any sense of the word.

There is no free energy lunch.

[peace13]

8. Ahhh reminds me of the early days when Davis Besse went online.

The electric bill would come and it would say Davis Besse saved you $1.88 and then the thing would go down for months but the next time it came back on line the bill would say Davis Besse saved you $2.10. Really? And how much did the repairs cost me. Lake Erie is lined with these radioactive beauties. If you sail the lake they are a true sight to behold.

[crikkett]

12. oops! n/t

[butterfly77]

13. Boy,oh Boy..

Did the Bush administration take care of anything in this country?

[CountAllVotes]

17. the answer is no

no no no no no!!!

:dem: :kick:

[AlbertCat]

32. Did the Bush administration take care of anything in this country?

Eight years without a government. Eight years of grab as much for yourself as you can and leave.

[Spheric]

15. Read it and weep. K&R /nt

[pundaint]

18. Routine inspections found what they were there to do - a problem. The inspection worked.

The problem will be repaired. Light a candle, take a breath. Chill.

[pundaint]

20. We need a MIX of electrical generation capacity. Every one has negative trade-offs

Would any of you use a car built when the last nuclear plant was commissioned as a daily driver. Has technology improved your current ride? Shall we abandon cars until those antique cars stop requiring continuing maintenance?

Part of our grid must have on-demand capacity. That's fossil fuels, nuclear, or damming up more rivers for idle turbine capacity.

It is my belief that the risks associated with the nuclear alternative are the best understood ones, and the only ones where there is a solution that works, barring some armageddon scenario.

[kristopher]

29. This is a way it can be done without nuclear or coal

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
Look to the left at the SciAm page and download the paper by Jacobson and Delucci.

Wind, wave/tidal/current, geothermal, biomass, and solar come online faster than nuclear. We will transition from petroleum first via electric vehicles, and we concurrently focus on building out those sources renewable sources to replace first coal, next natural gas, and finally nuclear.

That is the least cost, fastest path to the most reliable non-carbon energy infrastructure.

[Pavulon]

34. Bobble head jesus will put 130+ gigawatts online in the tristate

no here is how its done. That stuff will never happen.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[kristopher]

36. That paper doesn't say that.

It is, at best, a *conditional* recommendation that nuclear be included in the mix. I challenge you to give specific page/paragraph references that justify your use of that paper to support your incorrect assertion.

[pundaint]

38. When Dallas or San Antonio or Pheonix have heat waves how are you going to get

that power there. How are you going to address cold-snaps in the Midwest? There needs to be local capacity that can be turned up on demand.

Biomass is just coal or oil without the wait. Solar wont get you thru increased demands at night and not so much in the Winter at Northern latitudes.

There's no argument from me about all those solutions except biomass for generation, but there is also a role that can be best met by including nuclear in the mix too.

[zbdent]

21. until a few years ago, "nuclear football" only meant one thing ...

The "massive corrosion" back 8 years ago was the size of a football ... and we're not talking pee-wee league ...

[cstanleytech]

23. I am not sayin I am for nor against nuke power but I wonder if those of you who

advocate against would be shouting so loudly if it meant the difference between you having small comforts like AC, TV and lights and not having them /pondering

[kristopher]

31. Since it doen't mean that...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

Download the Jacobson and Delucci paper to the left on the SciAm page.

[Pavulon]

33. I prefer the MIT paper... You know THE MIT...

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Looks pretty well thought out. Have used it to bash those who think wind can actually keep the lights on in NYC.

[kristopher]

35. Yes I know it. Is that the 2003 version you have?

How close to the mark were they? Their study speaks for itself - they were as far off the mark on price as can be imagined.

The performance of the independent analysts, on the other hand, has been spot on.

How much of a revision did the 2009 update make to the 2003 price forecast?

[Pavulon]

42. 2009 paper still determines the technology sound..

price is more compared to coal. Cant really compare it to prayer power or solar since neither are tangible in the 100 gigawatt range.

[kristopher]

44. So you admit you are making things up.

I knew that, but it is good for everyone else to know.

Your characterization that the paper "determines the technology sound" is meaningless. The MIT report is EXTREMELY cautious about the viability of nuclear power - and they are using the most positive assumptions the nuclear industry can provide. Their poor results between 2003 and 2009 show conclusively that their projections have a low level of validity.

[Pavulon]

45. I admit I am baffled by your response.

read the fucking paper, draw your own conclusions. Your jeebus technology does not exist and will not exist in any form that can generate that load in the near or future <10 years..

The performance of the 104 U.S. nuclear plants since 2003 has been excellent. The total number of kWh produced by the reactors has steadily increased over those five years. The fleet-averaged capacity factor since 2003 has been maintained at about 90%.7

[kristopher]

46. I have read the paper and it doesn't say what you claimed - period.

ETA: your post 33:
I prefer the MIT paper... You know THE MIT...

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower /

Looks pretty well thought out. Have used it to bash those who think wind can actually keep the lights on in NYC.

(I don't know why but this was dropped when I posted it before...)

[Pavulon]

47. Which was???(nt)

[kristopher]

48. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4307373&mesg_id=4308093

[Pavulon]

49. How many GWe is wind generating right now?

how many wind mills to equal the ~300GWe onine for nuclear power? What is the base efficiency for wind generation? Now does your earlier number take that into account? Yep. your answers pretty much make the wind game clear.

[kristopher]

50. You cited the MIT paper as a basis for your claim. You were not telling the truth.

It isn't complicated.

The claim you are making now has no basis in reason. It is the "If man were meant to fly" attack and it is no more valid now than when used with airplanes.

Nuclear power is a poor choice.

[Pavulon]

51. I interpret that bullshit to be = you dont like the answer to those questions...How many GWe??

why not answer my questions? The MIT paper clearly lays out the blend of renewables.

Hey, they will be shit cheap made in china trash same as solar. Guys working on them will make the same as a fork truck driver..

But no one wants that 80k a year job in a nuke plant.

[Blue Owl]

24. Let's hear it for our crumbling infrastructure!

Brought to you by the Republican Party.

[SlingBlade]

27. Are you listening Mr. President ?

Oh That's right, You only listen to Re-Pukes and Dick Heads.
You sick your fuck'in bull dog Rahm on real democrats like Dennis Kucinich

Change you Can Not Believe In !

[lib2DaBone]

28. This plant is 30 years old! How many people drive a car 30 years?

Oh.. I forgot.. we can't afford new high-tech pressurized nuclear plants because we are pissing $15 BILLION a month down the toilet in Afpakistan.

[pundaint]

39. Big Oil has us believing that their propaganda is the product of our own evaluation. If only they

were as good at powering America's growth as they have been at co-opting America's Greatness for their own profitable ends.

[Auggie]

43. +1. That's the American way: short term profits trump foresight

[HughMoran]

54. Are you going to move this to the Ohio forum?

??