11 ms·

Feds find "substantial'' safety issue at SC nuclear plant

118 points by DocFeind 3y ago

very_good_man 3y ago
[flagged]
- dale_glass 3y ago
  In what way? Stuff like backup generators are not just for show. They're supposed to work properly in an emergency. I fully accept that nuclear can be a very safe technology. This is only so when the rules are followed and the backup plans actually work, though. But nuclear is dead anyway, due to being economically and politically non-competitive.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    The economics are due to the politics. The current crop of politicians just love coal.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Due to politics, in the sense of not allowing the nuclear industry to build whatever it damned well wants and subject society to learning-by-meltdown is the result of politics.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        If you buy the global warming is going to kill us all theory, that appears to have been a grave error.
  - alerighi 3y ago
    First, it doesn't say that the backup generator did not work. An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function. It's something to pay attention and repair, but not something critical. If your car has an oil leak you keep driving it and repair it when you have time to do so. Second, the diesel generator is just one of many backup systems. To use it you have to have the (at least) two independent connections with the grid fail. Even if it does, you don't have one generator, but more than one. Even if the generator fails, passive system will cool down the reactor for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile generator on a truck to arrive and be connected, without any damage. There were only one case where generators and all external power supplies had failed, that is of course Fukushima. Even in that context, if the passive systems where not damaged by the tzunami, there wouldn't have been any release of radioactivity. And even in that context, considering that the containment had design flaws, the impact on the environment wasn't that huge. That is, nuclear power plants have multiple systems that can fail, as a complex machine. The fact that one system fails or has some issue doesn't necessary mean that the safety of the whole power plant is compromised.
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      > An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function. If oil runs out, then the generator will very much stop functioning, in an ugly and hard to fix manner. Something you very much don't want in an emergency. > It's something to pay attention and repair, but not something critical. Sure, the thing making sure the reactor doesn't suffer catastrophic damage is not critical. Right. I also must have forgotten that disasters politely add themselves to the schedule with plenty warning time. > Even if the generator fails, passive system will cool down the reactor for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile generator on a truck to arrive and be connected, without any damage. Didn't quite work that way for Fukushima. > There were only one case where generators and all external power supplies had failed, that is of course Fukushima. Even in that context, if the passive systems where not damaged by the tzunami, there wouldn't have been any release of radioactivity. Sure, it only took lots of people working around the clock to keep things contained (so it seems it wasn't something one could just ignore, it needed urgent work), and it cost a huge amount of $$$ to deal with it, and it destroyed those reactors, which is more $$$. That it didn't blow up Chernobyl style is absolutely a great thing, but it probably cost more than it ever made money, and that's not exactly something that encourages anyone to build more.
    - crote 3y ago
      They found cracks in fuel oil lines. Last time I checked, generators need fuel to operate. In fact, the article even states: > the problem grew to a point where the diesel generator system did not work during testing. You have backups because things unexpectedly fail. It's the Swiss Cheese model: more than one system can fail at the same time so you should be able to handle multiple failures at once. Especially because failures often cause other failures to happen. Fukushima also had multiple grid connections. They had 13 emergency generators which could be cross-connected between reactors. They could also bring in mobile generators. It still wasn't enough, because they shared a huge unknown common failure mode. Fukushima is exactly the reason why ignoring defects on one of your two emergency generators for twenty years is such a big deal. When the potential impact is as large as it is with nuclear power, you simply cannot afford slacking off like this.
    - cycomanic 3y ago
      I sure hope you don't make safety critical decisions. If you look at the history of failures in modern complex systems you almost always see that it happens as a series of unlikely events (or events that someone deemed impossible), that let to catastrophic failure. That's the whole point of multiple safety mechanisms, have backups in case one fails. If you start removing the backup mechanisms (e.g. through improper maintanance like it is the case here) you reduce the overall safety of the system. Does that mean certain catastrophic failure in case the system is needed? Probably not, but it increases the likelyhood of a chain of events that lead to it. The main news here is not that they had cracks in the pipes, the main news is that over the last 20 odd years the operator never bothered to do a proper fix instead opting for the (likely cheaper) quick fix.
  - pydry 3y ago
    It's competitive politically. Civilian nuclear power shares a lot of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, subs & aircraft carriers: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/the-value-of-the-us-nuclear-power-complex-to-us-national-security/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/is... For countries that are facing an awkward geopolitical threat (e.g. Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Iran), it can help ensure that you're not too far off creating a bomb.
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      In some countries, maybe. Doubtful in others. Eg, in the US it's highly likely that if one party tried to do a mass buildup of nuclear, the next one would do its best to sabotage it. The one deciding to build would not see the plants being finished, and would likely see the project defunded or sabotaged in some way. For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors, unrelated to whatever needs the population at large might have.
      - pydry 3y ago
        The only thing that is sabotaging nuclear power in the US is cost. It has been given an economic leg up that most industries could never even dream of. It's just so expensive that that often isn't enough to make it viable. That is the reason for its (quite successful) attempts to brand itself as the New Green Jesus. >For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors Yes, the military does have its own reactors. You are quite correct in this one specific fact. There's a revolving door between the military and the private sector for nuclear engineers and the industrial infrastructure they both rely upon is shared. The parts required to construct nuclear reactors are quite specific, you see, and you need specialized industry to provide it.
    - KennyBlanken 3y ago
      There is a long way from commercial nuclear power to nuclear weaponry, other countries notice you trying to get from one to the other, and that puts a target on your back. Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power generation and it checks notes was one of the reasons Russia invaded them?
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    It's dead because it's not economically viable. It never was. It's been enormously subsidized by the military's interest in nuclear propulsion and weaponry for well over half a century, and it has only gotten more expensive. Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost. Solar and wind are far cheaper, more easily distributed which makes them more resilient, have simpler construction, installation, maintenance, and repair chains, and none of the geopolitical and security headaches. The last hurdle is better long distance distribution (HVDC) to be able to better move power around and deploying more energy storage at all levels - grid, microgrid, and home.
    - wpm 3y ago
      >Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost. Which famously, received no subsidies at all.
      - cycomanic 3y ago
        In comparison to nuclear, very little in fact. That said the combined nuclear/renewables subsidies pale in comparison to subsidies received by fossil fuels.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        Moreover, subsidies have an economic argument for certain technologies. Specifically, if the technology has good experience effects, current deployment causes future costs to decline, a positive externality. So it makes sense to subsidize technologies that have good experience effects. Renewables have shown strong and sustained experience effects. Nuclear has not. So it would make sense to subsidize renewables more than nuclear.
      - jart 3y ago
        They're also such a blight on landscapes. I don't want to think about where my power comes from, any more than people want to think about where their meat comes from.
        3y ago
BeastMachine 3y ago
I'm an advocate for nuclear power but it seems ridiculous that this warning was given 20 years after the initial find. I understand that nuclear facilities are not like regular buildings and require more logistics for repairs but there's no way it would require 20 years.
- cmilton 3y ago
  The way I understood it was inspections have always been done. The original cracks were repaired. New ones did not show up until 2022.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    That's not my understanding from reading the linked article and one linked from it. From: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article280228714.html https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article28022... > The NRC, which rarely issues yellow findings, said nuclear plant operators did not resolve cracking problems from 2003 to 2022 in V.C. Summer’s diesel generator system, one of the most important backup safety systems at an atomic power plant. which links to: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article279283589.html https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article27928... > Federal nuclear safety officials made a discovery that was perhaps more unsettling than the problem from 2022. They identified a pattern of cracks and leaks in the plant’s emergency generator system going back 20 years. On five different occasions since 2003, the power company has been forced to repair cracks in the emergency diesel generator system, according to an agency inspection report released in August. Diesel oil leaks have focused attention on why VC Summer plant operators did not resolve the cracking problems — and how that might have affected the company’s ability to prevent a radiation leak if an emergency occurred. Officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say they are concerned because the problems keep recurring. Few other nuclear plants in the Southeast have had the same number of cracking problems in diesel generator systems, say officials in the agency’s Atlanta office.
    - cmilton 3y ago
      We would need to assume that each of those events was spread out over the entirety of the 20 years. All 5 occasions could have happened between 2003 and 2007, and fifteen years passed before the next. Each time the cracks were repaired. Without a true timeline of events, its hard to say for sure.
londons_explore 3y ago
Time to consult Homer Simpson? His expertise can be had for the low low cost of a few doughnuts.
shadowgovt 3y ago
The good news is that the yellow card is for not resolving issues with the backup diesel power system, not anything to do with the reactor vessel or primary loop. This is the right abundance of caution for the NRC to use (after all, that kind of reactor can melt down if power completely fails and cannot be maintained to sink heat), but it should be an easy fix. If anything, the yellow card was given for how long Dominion's been letting itself sit on an easy fix. (On the other hand, the justifiably-paranoid might ask what else is wrong if they've let a maintenance issue this relatively unimportant slide...)
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  This reminds me of the “Green M&Ms Canary” story; attributed to Van Halen. They were famous for having a clause in the preparation checklist, that they had to have a bowl of M&Ms in the lounge, but no green ones. Eddie Van Halen was asked about this, and his explanation was that their stage set was very complex, and required rigorous preparation. Failure could actually be dangerous (think the “pod” scene from Spinal Tap). He said that if they found green M&Ms, then that meant the instructions were not read correctly. [EDIT] I was wrong. It was brown M&Ms
  - adaml_623 3y ago
    Brown M&Ms. Which is tiny I know but I have a suspicion you did that to test us
    - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
      No. It was my mistake. I didn't read the rider, so Dave would be stuck in a pod.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    ahem...you clearly didn't read the rider. it was brown M&Ms "The rider's "Munchies" section was where the group made its candy-with-a-caveat request: "M&M's (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO BROWN ONES)." * *https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/van-halens-legendary-mms-rider https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/van-halens-leg...
hanniabu 3y ago
This is why many, including myself, are against nuclear power. They have an engineered lifespan and things start falling apart and becoming dangerous when you exceed that. Many should never have been extended. They've had to change safety tests and infrastructure tests so the order plans would pass inspection. This has always been my concern with nuclear. Yes we can make it safe, but the human greed factor is always the weak point. Regulations weakened, automated systems bypassed, skimping on design decisions, etc. This first link makes me absolutely furious. There's too much to quote from here, but here's just one excerpt. The post has numerous examples of very concerning issues. > When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 > The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating licenses. Many plant operators have sought licenses to extend the operating life of their plants past the original deadlines, even as experts have warned that aging plants come with heightened concerns about safety. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspection-weakening.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspe... > The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police themselves. The NRC “is listening” to this advice, the Associated Press reported last month. “Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was ‘open to self-assessments’ by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections.” https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-trump-also-letting-nuclear-plants-regulate-safety https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-tru...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- BeastMachine 3y ago
  I've always wondered if being forced to live near the plants would change regulators minds. There are plants throughout the country, so if you want any say in safety regulations you'd have to live within 1km of the start of the safety zone.
kogus 3y ago
The V.C. Sumner site has been a multi-decade slow motion financial and management catastrophe on many fronts[1][2][3]. It does not surprise me that the rot that apparently existed (and maybe still exists) at the top has filtered down into operational and maintenance issues. One lesson for me is that excellence is a symptom of a healthy organization, not the other way around. [1] https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-nuclear-project-timeline/ https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-carolina-utility-agrees-to-137-5-million-settlement-to-resolve-fraud-charges-11607037368 https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-carolina-utility-agrees-t... [3] https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/ https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new...
fluxem 3y ago
Good news is that nuclear energy is safe and has zero long lasting ecological effects! Also management and governments are always competent. Otherwise, we would be in big, big trouble
- lukev 3y ago
  This is the system working as intended... it's the problems that don't get caught you need to worry about...
- dylan604 3y ago
  how do you explain the nuclear navy's safety record?
  - fluxem 3y ago
    Nuclear subs and air carriers are part of deterrence strategy. So, most reports will be classified, unlike for nuclear plants. Never the less, we know about numerous accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submari... Also, let’s not forget about Hanford site, which was part of the US nuclear program
    - dylan604 3y ago
      not one of those incidents were due to reactor failure. running a reactor is complicated. operating a submarine at depths is also complicated. combining them doesn't mean either one gets less complicated. a failure of some complicated part of the submarine does not mean the power source failed. assuming they do with flippant "but subs have sunk" comments is just disingenuous at best.
      - fluxem 3y ago
        Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine#Reactor_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine#Reactor_acci...
Animats 3y ago
Found the NRC inspection reports leading up to this.[1] Significance: P (pending) Jun 30, 2023 Identified By: SR Item Type: AV Apparent Violation (AV) Failure to Identify and Correct a Condition Adverse to Quality Associated with the EDG Fuel Oil System A self-revealed finding with significance to be determined (Pending) and associated AV of Title of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, "Corrective Action," was identified when the licensee failed to identify and correct a condition adverse to quality for the EDG fuel oil system that left the system vulnerable to premature piping cracks and eventually resulted in the failure of the ‘A’ EDG during testing on November 2, 2022. Specifically, inspectors determined that, based on the failure history of the EDGs and the licensee’s documented conclusions that attributed pipe cracks to prior maintenance events, the licensee had sufficient information to identify the existence of a condition adverse to quality related to the design of the EDG fuel oil system. This condition caused threaded fuel oil piping connections to be vulnerable to maintenance activities that over torqued, strained, or impacted the piping. Despite the challenge to maintain leak-tight connections and repeat occurrences of cracked piping, no significant changes were made to maintenance practices, procedures or system design, and the licensee continued to reactively monitor for leakage even after vulnerabilities were identified. Previous report: Significance: W (white) Mar 31, 2022 Identified By: NRCI Item Type: NOV Notice of Violation (NOV) Failure to Correct Condition Adverse to Quality Resulting in Inoperable Emergency Diesel Generator An NRC-identified apparent violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, was identified for the licensee failing to correct a condition adverse to quality resulting in the inoperability of the 'B' emergency diesel generator (EDG). Specifically, there were indications of erratic governor performance following the January 2022 maintenance package that were identified during testing January 16, 2022. The governor performance was also erratic during the February 9, 2022, surveillance test, after which the licensee declared the EDG inoperable. As a result of this condition, the ‘B’ EDG was inoperable for a time in excess of its technical specification (TS) allowed outage time. The scale is Green, White, Yellow, Red. Normal is green. This problem reached White in March 2022, and the June 2023 problem shows as Pending, which means the NRC had not assigned a color level yet. Now they have escalated that to Yellow, according to the press coverage. Which is a good move, considering that troubles have been observed in both the A and B emergency generator systems. Anyone know if they have more than two emergency generators? Two is kind of low. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2322/ML23223A006.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2322/ML23223A006.pdf
nightpool 3y ago
The problems being related to the backup generators make me think about the current Freefall arc (written by a nuclear engineer, even), which focuses in part on a unethical space station manager who is skimping on maintenance regimes to create a temporary life-support failure (requiring the use of backup generators) that would trigger the automatic reallocation of unused manufacturing robots from a nearby in-orbit factory to bolster his workforce and lower his labor costs (storyline starting around ... here http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3800/fc03702.htm http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3800/fc03702.htm, although prior to that are a few fun strips about procurement bureaucracy)
eatonphil 3y ago
Reminds me a little bit of what happened in Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal
amadeuspagel 3y ago
Nuclear power should be run by the state, like in France.
- tourist2d 3y ago
  France is a country, silly.
  - surge 3y ago
    States are mini countries, state means country, hence United States. We're a country of smaller countries. So run by the state can be government for the SC or France. The original 13 states (of which SC was one) existed separately as their own countries before they decided to join the US and it's been an ongoing debate how independent each is, which is why we use the Constitution as a guideline. The European Union is basically a variation on the same theme since the economic advantages of such a setup has benefited our country.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  It is, sometimes. The Tennessee Valley Authority operates three nuclear reactors that generate commercial power. They also generate tritium for hydrogen bombs. And do things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly... It's not about hiring infallible operators. It's about operating with enough redundancy that humans can be fallible without causing a disaster.
omgJustTest 3y ago
Nuclear engineer here: These plants need on-site diesel generators to provide site-power in case of loss of off-site power (grid failure). Here the operator had leaks in fuel lines that fed both the A and B generators. These are the only generators of on-site emergency power. An operating reactor needs approximately 2-5 days to cool due to build-up of radioactive decay products in the core, which continue to generate heat even after the reactor has been fully shutdown (in the case of an emergency, a sudden shutdown of the reactor is called a SCRAM). On-site power serves the primary purpose of driving core-recirculating coolant loops to control the core temperature. Chief metrics in reactor safety generally relate back to core-damage-frequency (CDF), because when one damages the fuel-casing or core, this is the most-likely precursor to releasing radioactivity. CDF determinations are almost directly linked to loss-of-coolant-accidents (LOCAs) which imply that one can no longer cool the nuclear fuel core or elements. Total station blackout, which is a result of loss of off-site and on-site power, combined with a SCRAM is essentially the scenarios that led to Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters. The NRC will not treat this lightly.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  These reactors are all the 20th century designs that require active cooling after a SCRAM. There are newer designs that can do this with passive cooling and thereby don't require power, aren't there? How come we don't build those?
  - AngryData 3y ago
    Yes there are newer designs that are suppose to be passively safe. But of course the money and government approval needed to build them, especially an as of yet untested design, are all locked behind political doors and hurdles.
    - scoobydooxp 3y ago
      The US currently has one AP1000 I believe and one under construction (see Vogtle 3&4). Other countries are building them. China for example has AP1000's and CAP1000's/CAP1400's (their modified version of the AP1000) in use and being built. The AP1000 design is a generation III+ reactor which is safer than 99% of the existing plants in the U.S.
mrlonglong 3y ago
Management assholes not spending the money to fix it properly, they'd rather take the profits instead. This is a disease that should be eradicated with jail and massive fines.

118 points by DocFeind 3y ago

very_good_man 3y ago

[flagged]

dale_glass 3y ago
In what way? Stuff like backup generators are not just for show. They're supposed to work properly in an emergency. I fully accept that nuclear can be a very safe technology. This is only so when the rules are followed and the backup plans actually work, though. But nuclear is dead anyway, due to being economically and politically non-competitive.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  The economics are due to the politics. The current crop of politicians just love coal.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Due to politics, in the sense of not allowing the nuclear industry to build whatever it damned well wants and subject society to learning-by-meltdown is the result of politics.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      If you buy the global warming is going to kill us all theory, that appears to have been a grave error.
- alerighi 3y ago
  First, it doesn't say that the backup generator did not work. An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function. It's something to pay attention and repair, but not something critical. If your car has an oil leak you keep driving it and repair it when you have time to do so. Second, the diesel generator is just one of many backup systems. To use it you have to have the (at least) two independent connections with the grid fail. Even if it does, you don't have one generator, but more than one. Even if the generator fails, passive system will cool down the reactor for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile generator on a truck to arrive and be connected, without any damage. There were only one case where generators and all external power supplies had failed, that is of course Fukushima. Even in that context, if the passive systems where not damaged by the tzunami, there wouldn't have been any release of radioactivity. And even in that context, considering that the containment had design flaws, the impact on the environment wasn't that huge. That is, nuclear power plants have multiple systems that can fail, as a complex machine. The fact that one system fails or has some issue doesn't necessary mean that the safety of the whole power plant is compromised.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    > An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function. If oil runs out, then the generator will very much stop functioning, in an ugly and hard to fix manner. Something you very much don't want in an emergency. > It's something to pay attention and repair, but not something critical. Sure, the thing making sure the reactor doesn't suffer catastrophic damage is not critical. Right. I also must have forgotten that disasters politely add themselves to the schedule with plenty warning time. > Even if the generator fails, passive system will cool down the reactor for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile generator on a truck to arrive and be connected, without any damage. Didn't quite work that way for Fukushima. > There were only one case where generators and all external power supplies had failed, that is of course Fukushima. Even in that context, if the passive systems where not damaged by the tzunami, there wouldn't have been any release of radioactivity. Sure, it only took lots of people working around the clock to keep things contained (so it seems it wasn't something one could just ignore, it needed urgent work), and it cost a huge amount of $$$ to deal with it, and it destroyed those reactors, which is more $$$. That it didn't blow up Chernobyl style is absolutely a great thing, but it probably cost more than it ever made money, and that's not exactly something that encourages anyone to build more.
  - crote 3y ago
    They found cracks in fuel oil lines. Last time I checked, generators need fuel to operate. In fact, the article even states: > the problem grew to a point where the diesel generator system did not work during testing. You have backups because things unexpectedly fail. It's the Swiss Cheese model: more than one system can fail at the same time so you should be able to handle multiple failures at once. Especially because failures often cause other failures to happen. Fukushima also had multiple grid connections. They had 13 emergency generators which could be cross-connected between reactors. They could also bring in mobile generators. It still wasn't enough, because they shared a huge unknown common failure mode. Fukushima is exactly the reason why ignoring defects on one of your two emergency generators for twenty years is such a big deal. When the potential impact is as large as it is with nuclear power, you simply cannot afford slacking off like this.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    I sure hope you don't make safety critical decisions. If you look at the history of failures in modern complex systems you almost always see that it happens as a series of unlikely events (or events that someone deemed impossible), that let to catastrophic failure. That's the whole point of multiple safety mechanisms, have backups in case one fails. If you start removing the backup mechanisms (e.g. through improper maintanance like it is the case here) you reduce the overall safety of the system. Does that mean certain catastrophic failure in case the system is needed? Probably not, but it increases the likelyhood of a chain of events that lead to it. The main news here is not that they had cracks in the pipes, the main news is that over the last 20 odd years the operator never bothered to do a proper fix instead opting for the (likely cheaper) quick fix.
- pydry 3y ago
  It's competitive politically. Civilian nuclear power shares a lot of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, subs & aircraft carriers: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/the-value-of-the-us-nuclear-power-complex-to-us-national-security/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/is... For countries that are facing an awkward geopolitical threat (e.g. Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Iran), it can help ensure that you're not too far off creating a bomb.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    In some countries, maybe. Doubtful in others. Eg, in the US it's highly likely that if one party tried to do a mass buildup of nuclear, the next one would do its best to sabotage it. The one deciding to build would not see the plants being finished, and would likely see the project defunded or sabotaged in some way. For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors, unrelated to whatever needs the population at large might have.
    - pydry 3y ago
      The only thing that is sabotaging nuclear power in the US is cost. It has been given an economic leg up that most industries could never even dream of. It's just so expensive that that often isn't enough to make it viable. That is the reason for its (quite successful) attempts to brand itself as the New Green Jesus. >For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors Yes, the military does have its own reactors. You are quite correct in this one specific fact. There's a revolving door between the military and the private sector for nuclear engineers and the industrial infrastructure they both rely upon is shared. The parts required to construct nuclear reactors are quite specific, you see, and you need specialized industry to provide it.
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    There is a long way from commercial nuclear power to nuclear weaponry, other countries notice you trying to get from one to the other, and that puts a target on your back. Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power generation and it checks notes was one of the reasons Russia invaded them?
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  It's dead because it's not economically viable. It never was. It's been enormously subsidized by the military's interest in nuclear propulsion and weaponry for well over half a century, and it has only gotten more expensive. Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost. Solar and wind are far cheaper, more easily distributed which makes them more resilient, have simpler construction, installation, maintenance, and repair chains, and none of the geopolitical and security headaches. The last hurdle is better long distance distribution (HVDC) to be able to better move power around and deploying more energy storage at all levels - grid, microgrid, and home.
  - wpm 3y ago
    >Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost. Which famously, received no subsidies at all.
    - cycomanic 3y ago
      In comparison to nuclear, very little in fact. That said the combined nuclear/renewables subsidies pale in comparison to subsidies received by fossil fuels.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        Moreover, subsidies have an economic argument for certain technologies. Specifically, if the technology has good experience effects, current deployment causes future costs to decline, a positive externality. So it makes sense to subsidize technologies that have good experience effects. Renewables have shown strong and sustained experience effects. Nuclear has not. So it would make sense to subsidize renewables more than nuclear.
    - jart 3y ago
      They're also such a blight on landscapes. I don't want to think about where my power comes from, any more than people want to think about where their meat comes from.
      - 3y ago

BeastMachine 3y ago

I'm an advocate for nuclear power but it seems ridiculous that this warning was given 20 years after the initial find. I understand that nuclear facilities are not like regular buildings and require more logistics for repairs but there's no way it would require 20 years.

cmilton 3y ago
The way I understood it was inspections have always been done. The original cracks were repaired. New ones did not show up until 2022.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  That's not my understanding from reading the linked article and one linked from it. From: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article280228714.html https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article28022... > The NRC, which rarely issues yellow findings, said nuclear plant operators did not resolve cracking problems from 2003 to 2022 in V.C. Summer’s diesel generator system, one of the most important backup safety systems at an atomic power plant. which links to: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article279283589.html https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article27928... > Federal nuclear safety officials made a discovery that was perhaps more unsettling than the problem from 2022. They identified a pattern of cracks and leaks in the plant’s emergency generator system going back 20 years. On five different occasions since 2003, the power company has been forced to repair cracks in the emergency diesel generator system, according to an agency inspection report released in August. Diesel oil leaks have focused attention on why VC Summer plant operators did not resolve the cracking problems — and how that might have affected the company’s ability to prevent a radiation leak if an emergency occurred. Officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say they are concerned because the problems keep recurring. Few other nuclear plants in the Southeast have had the same number of cracking problems in diesel generator systems, say officials in the agency’s Atlanta office.
  - cmilton 3y ago
    We would need to assume that each of those events was spread out over the entirety of the 20 years. All 5 occasions could have happened between 2003 and 2007, and fifteen years passed before the next. Each time the cracks were repaired. Without a true timeline of events, its hard to say for sure.

londons_explore 3y ago

Time to consult Homer Simpson? His expertise can be had for the low low cost of a few doughnuts.

shadowgovt 3y ago

The good news is that the yellow card is for not resolving issues with the backup diesel power system, not anything to do with the reactor vessel or primary loop. This is the right abundance of caution for the NRC to use (after all, that kind of reactor can melt down if power completely fails and cannot be maintained to sink heat), but it should be an easy fix. If anything, the yellow card was given for how long Dominion's been letting itself sit on an easy fix. (On the other hand, the justifiably-paranoid might ask what else is wrong if they've let a maintenance issue this relatively unimportant slide...)

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
This reminds me of the “Green M&Ms Canary” story; attributed to Van Halen. They were famous for having a clause in the preparation checklist, that they had to have a bowl of M&Ms in the lounge, but no green ones. Eddie Van Halen was asked about this, and his explanation was that their stage set was very complex, and required rigorous preparation. Failure could actually be dangerous (think the “pod” scene from Spinal Tap). He said that if they found green M&Ms, then that meant the instructions were not read correctly. [EDIT] I was wrong. It was brown M&Ms
- adaml_623 3y ago
  Brown M&Ms. Which is tiny I know but I have a suspicion you did that to test us
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    No. It was my mistake. I didn't read the rider, so Dave would be stuck in a pod.
- dylan604 3y ago
  ahem...you clearly didn't read the rider. it was brown M&Ms "The rider's "Munchies" section was where the group made its candy-with-a-caveat request: "M&M's (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO BROWN ONES)." * *https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/van-halens-legendary-mms-rider https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/van-halens-leg...

hanniabu 3y ago

This is why many, including myself, are against nuclear power. They have an engineered lifespan and things start falling apart and becoming dangerous when you exceed that. Many should never have been extended. They've had to change safety tests and infrastructure tests so the order plans would pass inspection. This has always been my concern with nuclear. Yes we can make it safe, but the human greed factor is always the weak point. Regulations weakened, automated systems bypassed, skimping on design decisions, etc. This first link makes me absolutely furious. There's too much to quote from here, but here's just one excerpt. The post has numerous examples of very concerning issues. > When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 > The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating licenses. Many plant operators have sought licenses to extend the operating life of their plants past the original deadlines, even as experts have warned that aging plants come with heightened concerns about safety. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspection-weakening.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspe... > The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police themselves. The NRC “is listening” to this advice, the Associated Press reported last month. “Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was ‘open to self-assessments’ by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections.” https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-trump-also-letting-nuclear-plants-regulate-safety https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-tru...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BeastMachine 3y ago
I've always wondered if being forced to live near the plants would change regulators minds. There are plants throughout the country, so if you want any say in safety regulations you'd have to live within 1km of the start of the safety zone.

kogus 3y ago

The V.C. Sumner site has been a multi-decade slow motion financial and management catastrophe on many fronts[1][2][3]. It does not surprise me that the rot that apparently existed (and maybe still exists) at the top has filtered down into operational and maintenance issues. One lesson for me is that excellence is a symptom of a healthy organization, not the other way around. [1] https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-nuclear-project-timeline/ https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-carolina-utility-agrees-to-137-5-million-settlement-to-resolve-fraud-charges-11607037368 https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-carolina-utility-agrees-t... [3] https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/ https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new...

fluxem 3y ago

Good news is that nuclear energy is safe and has zero long lasting ecological effects! Also management and governments are always competent. Otherwise, we would be in big, big trouble

lukev 3y ago
This is the system working as intended... it's the problems that don't get caught you need to worry about...
dylan604 3y ago
how do you explain the nuclear navy's safety record?
- fluxem 3y ago
  Nuclear subs and air carriers are part of deterrence strategy. So, most reports will be classified, unlike for nuclear plants. Never the less, we know about numerous accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submari... Also, let’s not forget about Hanford site, which was part of the US nuclear program
  - dylan604 3y ago
    not one of those incidents were due to reactor failure. running a reactor is complicated. operating a submarine at depths is also complicated. combining them doesn't mean either one gets less complicated. a failure of some complicated part of the submarine does not mean the power source failed. assuming they do with flippant "but subs have sunk" comments is just disingenuous at best.
    - fluxem 3y ago
      Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine#Reactor_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine#Reactor_acci...

Animats 3y ago

Found the NRC inspection reports leading up to this.[1] Significance: P (pending) Jun 30, 2023 Identified By: SR Item Type: AV Apparent Violation (AV) Failure to Identify and Correct a Condition Adverse to Quality Associated with the EDG Fuel Oil System A self-revealed finding with significance to be determined (Pending) and associated AV of Title of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, "Corrective Action," was identified when the licensee failed to identify and correct a condition adverse to quality for the EDG fuel oil system that left the system vulnerable to premature piping cracks and eventually resulted in the failure of the ‘A’ EDG during testing on November 2, 2022. Specifically, inspectors determined that, based on the failure history of the EDGs and the licensee’s documented conclusions that attributed pipe cracks to prior maintenance events, the licensee had sufficient information to identify the existence of a condition adverse to quality related to the design of the EDG fuel oil system. This condition caused threaded fuel oil piping connections to be vulnerable to maintenance activities that over torqued, strained, or impacted the piping. Despite the challenge to maintain leak-tight connections and repeat occurrences of cracked piping, no significant changes were made to maintenance practices, procedures or system design, and the licensee continued to reactively monitor for leakage even after vulnerabilities were identified. Previous report: Significance: W (white) Mar 31, 2022 Identified By: NRCI Item Type: NOV Notice of Violation (NOV) Failure to Correct Condition Adverse to Quality Resulting in Inoperable Emergency Diesel Generator An NRC-identified apparent violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, was identified for the licensee failing to correct a condition adverse to quality resulting in the inoperability of the 'B' emergency diesel generator (EDG). Specifically, there were indications of erratic governor performance following the January 2022 maintenance package that were identified during testing January 16, 2022. The governor performance was also erratic during the February 9, 2022, surveillance test, after which the licensee declared the EDG inoperable. As a result of this condition, the ‘B’ EDG was inoperable for a time in excess of its technical specification (TS) allowed outage time. The scale is Green, White, Yellow, Red. Normal is green. This problem reached White in March 2022, and the June 2023 problem shows as Pending, which means the NRC had not assigned a color level yet. Now they have escalated that to Yellow, according to the press coverage. Which is a good move, considering that troubles have been observed in both the A and B emergency generator systems. Anyone know if they have more than two emergency generators? Two is kind of low. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2322/ML23223A006.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2322/ML23223A006.pdf

nightpool 3y ago

The problems being related to the backup generators make me think about the current Freefall arc (written by a nuclear engineer, even), which focuses in part on a unethical space station manager who is skimping on maintenance regimes to create a temporary life-support failure (requiring the use of backup generators) that would trigger the automatic reallocation of unused manufacturing robots from a nearby in-orbit factory to bolster his workforce and lower his labor costs (storyline starting around ... here http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3800/fc03702.htm http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3800/fc03702.htm, although prior to that are a few fun strips about procurement bureaucracy)

eatonphil 3y ago

Reminds me a little bit of what happened in Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal

amadeuspagel 3y ago

Nuclear power should be run by the state, like in France.

tourist2d 3y ago
France is a country, silly.
- surge 3y ago
  States are mini countries, state means country, hence United States. We're a country of smaller countries. So run by the state can be government for the SC or France. The original 13 states (of which SC was one) existed separately as their own countries before they decided to join the US and it's been an ongoing debate how independent each is, which is why we use the Constitution as a guideline. The European Union is basically a variation on the same theme since the economic advantages of such a setup has benefited our country.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
It is, sometimes. The Tennessee Valley Authority operates three nuclear reactors that generate commercial power. They also generate tritium for hydrogen bombs. And do things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly... It's not about hiring infallible operators. It's about operating with enough redundancy that humans can be fallible without causing a disaster.

omgJustTest 3y ago

Nuclear engineer here: These plants need on-site diesel generators to provide site-power in case of loss of off-site power (grid failure). Here the operator had leaks in fuel lines that fed both the A and B generators. These are the only generators of on-site emergency power. An operating reactor needs approximately 2-5 days to cool due to build-up of radioactive decay products in the core, which continue to generate heat even after the reactor has been fully shutdown (in the case of an emergency, a sudden shutdown of the reactor is called a SCRAM). On-site power serves the primary purpose of driving core-recirculating coolant loops to control the core temperature. Chief metrics in reactor safety generally relate back to core-damage-frequency (CDF), because when one damages the fuel-casing or core, this is the most-likely precursor to releasing radioactivity. CDF determinations are almost directly linked to loss-of-coolant-accidents (LOCAs) which imply that one can no longer cool the nuclear fuel core or elements. Total station blackout, which is a result of loss of off-site and on-site power, combined with a SCRAM is essentially the scenarios that led to Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters. The NRC will not treat this lightly.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
These reactors are all the 20th century designs that require active cooling after a SCRAM. There are newer designs that can do this with passive cooling and thereby don't require power, aren't there? How come we don't build those?
- AngryData 3y ago
  Yes there are newer designs that are suppose to be passively safe. But of course the money and government approval needed to build them, especially an as of yet untested design, are all locked behind political doors and hurdles.
  - scoobydooxp 3y ago
    The US currently has one AP1000 I believe and one under construction (see Vogtle 3&4). Other countries are building them. China for example has AP1000's and CAP1000's/CAP1400's (their modified version of the AP1000) in use and being built. The AP1000 design is a generation III+ reactor which is safer than 99% of the existing plants in the U.S.

mrlonglong 3y ago

Management assholes not spending the money to fix it properly, they'd rather take the profits instead. This is a disease that should be eradicated with jail and massive fines.