Follow this blog:
RSS

CA nuke plant’s emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed

By | March 18, 2011, 3:58 PM PDT

The Diablo Canyon nuclear facility is located within one mile of the Shoreline Fault.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear facility is located within one mile of the Shoreline Fault.

A California nuclear reactor that borders multiple fault lines - and the Pacific Ocean - did not have a functional emergency pumping system for 18 months, according to reports.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant has sat perched atop a cliff at Avila Beach in California’s San Luis Obispo county since its completion in 1973. The plant is located within a stone’s throw of the Shoreline Fault and in the vicinity of the San Andreas Fault.

Aside from its unfortunate geography, Diablo Canyon’s pastoral surroundings have masked another hidden danger: human error. Engineers accidentally disabled a vital back-up cooling system that prevents the reactor from overheating.

The plant is operated by Pacific Gas & Electric, which recently requested that the California Public Utilities Commission for a 20-year extension to the plant’s lifecycle. The request has been postponed in light of the Fukushima Daiichi facility’s nuclear emergency in Japan.

The Diablo Canyon facility was built with a reinforced design meant to withstand earthquakes, but significant defects were uncovered during the early 1980’s. Nonetheless, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has allowed the reactor to continue operating.

One of the Diablo reactors was taken offline in 2008 when a swarm of jellyfish clogged up a critical cooling intake.

Nuclear power plants are built with redundant systems, and Diablo Canyon is no exception. Crew members could have manually opened up valves in the event of an emergency, and a separate pumping system could have been initiated in its place, a PG&E spokesperson told the San Francisco Chronicle.

However, Japan’s Fukushima reactors were also built with redundant systems. The systems failed in unanticipated ways following an earthquake and its subsequent tsunami, prompting engineers to take unconventional and unproven measures to cool exposed nuclear fuel.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) uncovered the incident at the Diablo Canyon site, which it detailed in a report published this week. The report overviews what UCS has deemed to be 14 recent “near misses” at U.S. nuclear power plants.

The group’s opposition to nuclear power is longstanding, and it favors the development of renewable power sources.

Last month, UCS issued a report that questioned the economically viable of nuclear power plants, which it says cannot exist with generous government subsidies.

UCS was founded in in 1969 by a group of scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to promote the use of science for public interest. It is strongly opposed to any political interference in scientific research.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of ScaleOut Software.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
17
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
Really appreciate the gist of this (and I reside 225 miles north of that plant, yikes). However, does this web site have any HUMAN EDITORS?? Really one cannot count solely on spell checkers....

"and the Pacific ocean"
--------------------Ocean

"since its competition in 1973"
-----------completion------------

"Diablo Canyon?s pastural surroundings"
---------------------pastoral------------------

"which recently request that the California Public Utilities"
------------------requested---------------------------------------

"Diablo Canyon is not exception"
----------------------no--------------

No intention to be nasty here or to imply that lousy typing is as important as lousy nuclear plant maintenance, but gee, too many typos in one article. Quality control will retain readers and this kind of information is valuable.
Posted by WebHybrid
18th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
@WebHybrid My apologies. I hit 'publish' instead of "save" before I went to dinner.
Posted by David Worthington
18th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
OK, thanks for revising it. Now I can send a link to Sen. Boxer, who is investigating all such things. Your efforts can make a huge difference and are appreciated.
Posted by WebHybrid
18th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
More errata
I think in the second to last paragraph you wanted to say "economic viability" rather than "economically viable".

It's impossible to plan for every possibility. "Stuff" happens. Trying to build nuclear power plants that will withstand anything just makes them less economically viable.
Posted by riverat1
20th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Human failure is really on the other animal' side
Where's the problem? The executives at Pacific Gas & Electric are most likely directly related to those in Congress or the White House and should therefore never be expected to be perfect or even try to be close. Remember to stop worrying and love the results of mass destruction. At least then the better animal species down here will most likely survive the worst failures of the human animal.
Posted by dgage19558@...
21st Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
david that's all well and good but its still wrong 3 day's later

"Last month, UCS issued a report that questioned the
economically viable of nuclear power plants, which it says cannot
exist with generous government subsidies."

what's wrong with that
cannot exist 'without' not "with"

and several other mistakes
Posted by techU
21st Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
clearly we dont want david in charge of that nuclear reactor inspection ether as he misses several obvious flaws all the time grin
Posted by techU
21st Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
What's really important here?
The (un)safety of nuclear powerplants, or the correctness of
spelling and grammar? I vote for the former.
Posted by Dukhalion
21st Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
riverat1 already mentioned "economically viable" being switched to "economic viability", but I believe the second half of that sentence needs to be fixed as well. Specifically, where it says that they "cannot exist with griverat1 already mentioned "economically viable" being switched to "economic viability", but I believe the second half of that sentence needs to be fixed as well. Specifically, where it says that they "cannot exist with generous government subsidies". I think you meant to say that they "cannot exist with out generous government subsidies" because if they didn't need the help then they would be economically viable.

"Last month, UCS issued a report that questioned the economic viability of nuclear power plants, which it says cannot exist without generous government subsidies."enerous government subsidies". I think you meant to say that they "cannot exist with out generous government subsidies" because if they didn't need the help then they would be economically viable.

Final:
"Last month, UCS issued a report that questioned the economic viability of nuclear power plants, which it says cannot exist without generous government subsidies."
Posted by luxsphinx@...
21st Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
Ironic, that my post about corrections got messed up. happy
Posted by luxsphinx@...
21st Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
Dukhalion, both are important. The more important the content is, the more important it is that writers do not diminish the respect readers give it. Careless writing can indicate careless thinking, or careless research.
Posted by martini@...
21st Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
Well, if one is not worried about the accuracy of the grammatical structure and spelling, might the accuracy of the article itself come under scrutiny.
Posted by Bruce in San Jose
21st Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
Every U.S. nuclear plant has multiple redundant systems in the event of a failure of a cooling system.
The plants in the US are all getting old. But since the NRC doesn't want to allow for building of new reactors, human error issues occur because other systems don't work.
Maybe if the NRC would lift the ban on new plants we could get some new, updated plants built and online.
Posted by hlspring@...
21st Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
the smart ones design the plants
the idiots (as my stepson) build them
Posted by ndjalva
21st Mar 2011
-1 Votes
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
Thank you - I now feel officially dumber for reading this. Not only do you quote nothing but biased, non-technical news agencies and staunch anti-nuclear groups who hide behind junk science to support their refutable claims about safety, design and operation of nuclear plants, you fail miserably in injecting anything of practical value to allow for education to occur.

Personal experience has allowed me the unique perspective of understanding both the inherent dangers and safety of nuclear plants as I have worked in several of them for over 20 years.

Your first comment couldn't be further from the truth and is, in fact, so ridiculously irresponsible, that I would be scared hearing it if I didn't know better. A little scientific research without bias leaning would net you enough information to know better than to insinuate that DCPP was without a means to keep the core cool in an emergency. This system you speak was not the most critical system for core cooling and would not have prevented the plant from safely cooling the core to below 200F as required per tech specs (design basis documents).

2nd, until all seismic retrofitting could be implemented (at the cost of billions of dollars), neither DCPP's Unit 1 or 2 could go online and become operational until 1985 & 1986, respectively. During that time, with certification from state and federal agencies, the plant was beefed up to withstand worst-case or what's called in the industry, design-basis, accidents including a 7.2 earthquake from nearby Hosgri fault (considered at the time of seismic re-design to be the most influential fault).

If you have no idea what this means, just know that every system - piping, mechanical, electrical, etc, was fortified with dampers, snubbers, pipe support mounts - you name it, it was installed to allow for systems to withstand the vibrations, swaying, shock and other oscillations associated with earthquakes.

You speak of human error as being the hidden, grotesque relative no one speaks of, but since it's operation begin, PG&E and DCPP have always maintained an openness to disclosure of mistakes of design or operations, including any violations of tech specs by reporting these as soon as they are discovered and a willingness to quickly resolve these issues. Name one industry with that kind of transparency - you will hard pressed to find one that is so bound to public and plant safety, that they are willing to take heat from the public disclosure, because it's the right thing to do. Of course, as common sense would tell us, no industry is 100% error-free, but in my experience, nuclear operations at DCPP come as close as it gets. It's not just a matter of having to, it's a matter of choice. Everyone that works there believes in that philosophy, from the top exec down to the union laborer.

You mentioned the swarm of jellyfish causing the unit(s) to be taken offline. That is by design, and is the safe thing to do, when you have a large differential pressure across the traveling screens which are used to filter out debris such as this or kelp in most cases. As a safety precaution, the plants are reduced in power, in fact, when a huge storm is approaching which produces a large surge and liberates a bunch of kelp, as this would also clog the intake screens. It's happened before and is always safely dealt with. Every event real or imagined has been taken into account and in most cases, where possible, practiced in simulated emergency scenarios. Again, public and plant safety are paramount.

Your comment about significant defects uncovered in the 1980s is deplorable as I will refer to the above mentioned seismic retrofitting to allow certification for operations. By no means did the NRC overlook this and just continue to "allow" the plant to run. How irresponsible as a journalist can you be?

Oh I know - comparing the Fukushima plant and event to Diablo Canyon as a direct one-to-one correlation. Yes they are both plants using nuclear fuel to product steam and drive turbines and yes, they are both situated on coasts near fault lines, but the differences are huge. DCPP has redundant systems that exceed design basis and are newer in design and scope than those at Fukushima. These systems are tested constantly, procedures are followed to the letter and very accurate records are kept as to their operation and maintenance. While this report of a misconfiguration of a safety system which rendered it ineffective is troubling, it is not the norm and far from it AND still would not have led to the type and scope of disaster that happened in the Japanese plant.

Nuclear power makes up ~ 20% of electricity produced in the US - a very significant part and an effective way to reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based electricity production. It's important to note that as electricity demand increases, just blindly saying we can generate enough power with renewable resources to effectively manage the growth is again irresponsible. Creating fear, uncertainty and doubt by reporting erroneous, misleading or incomplete information is tantamount to the Salem witch trials. You're teaching people to fear that which they do not fully understand. It would be better to provide a meaningful well-balanced approach, taking into account facts which can't be provided from just the sources such as the ones you quote.
Posted by gwd3@...
23rd Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: CA nuke plant's emergency cooling system failure went unnoticed
If you want me to share on Facebook you'll need to clean up your grammar!
Posted by jalbertini
23rd Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
policy institution
Good to know how to institute safety reviews.
Posted by xxfflltt
28th Jun 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!