GE must close all Boiling Water Reactors Mk. 1 in the United States

[denem]

“There has never been a breach of a Mark 1 containment system”. - Michael Tetuan, GE, 14 March 2011
"There has never been an escape from Stalag 13".

The Fukushima saga exposes one thing about the nuclear industry that cant be fixed. The initial investment is so high that to provide power at a competitive price, let alone get a return on investment, a nuclear power plant must complete it's operational life.

Unlike a 1960's corvette designed around the same time, the problem is a defective design like the Mk. 1 is that it can't be traded in for a new model, at least not by a for-profit organization.

Engineers resigned at GE rather than collaborate with an outfit that insisted the Mk. 1 was safe.

The events of a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami , while not exactly in the "no one could have imagined" category, initiated an unlikely but complete failure of the reactors' cooling system. Only the quick and dirty pumping of sea water was left, in effect scrapping the reactors which should have been done some time ago.

But never mind the reactor container, the real stand out surprise for me was the spent fuel rod pool sitting near the outer wall on the 4th floor of the building.

GE can argue all they like that Fukushima factors could never happen here, what they can't deny is the spent fuel is vulnerable.

Why should a terrorist organization bother bringing in a dirty bomb, when they have all they need on the 4th floor.

One well aimed rocket launched bomb could do the trick, and they know exactly where to shoot them, right across the country.

This is unacceptable.

All GE Mk. 1. reactors in the United States must be closed. Period..

[ananda]

1. The nuclear power industry is.. ermm .. very powerful.

Governments across the world are already softening their stances against
resuming plans for nuke plants, and of course the media is doing its part.

The USA has no plans to halt the progress towards building more plants either.

[Statistical]

22. Building more plants is different than keeping 1960s relic operational.

The US can build new high efficiency, passively safe modern reactors and at the same time phase out obsolete 1960s era relics.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. ASAP = At LEAST a decade

n/t

[hayu_lol]

3. Primary cause here was the failure of emergency generators...

to provided replacement power. This is the real culprit here...not the reactors.

Why were the generators not placed on higher ground.

Cooling pond problems need further study.

[denem]

4. The cooling ponds vulnerability is insolvable.

[Statistical]

10. I wouldn't say insolvable.

Modern designs have a seconded hardened building for fuel handling.



Another view:


Notice the primary reactor "room" is connected to fuel handling room by a tunnel.

Fuel pond should be separated from primary containment building. All new (GEN III+ passive safety) reactor designs incorporate this.

For example the AP1000



I think the MK I should be closed but a minimum they should be retrofitted to move cooling pond outside of primary containment to a second hardened building (built to same specs).

[denem]

15. And that's not a Mk, 1 That was the point of 'trading it in for a new model'.

I had a lengthy exchange with Statistical yesterday, asking whether the fuel rod pool in a Mk.1 can be repositioned. The answer is no.

[Statistical]

18. I think you misunderstood (or I misunderstood you).

I was speaking about the emergency. There is no effective method to move the fuel rods during the emergency so they need to be "saved in place".

The MK I design theoretically *could* be retrofitted but it would depend on a lot of factors. The engineering specs, the cost, and for many plant operators the space for a fuel handling building next to the reactor building. If it is practical or economic would require some study.

That being said I think the MK I should be shut down. Don't even try to retrofit them.
1) They are the oldest reactors. They will be shutdown relatively soon anyways (even with operating license extensions).
2) They are relatively small. 480MWe vs modern designs are 1200MWe - 1600MWe.
3) They are rather inefficient is both their fuel usage, and uptime.
4) They have characteristics that wouldn't be allowed on newer reactors (for good reason).

[denem]

21. Oh right.

You said "When fuel comes out of the reactor it is VERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY hot. They don't mess around with it. They simply open reactor, grab fuel, lower it into the cooling pond. Once it has cooled down they transport it to cooling pond outside. Then finaly to dry casks."

How easy would it be to retrofit a Mk, 1, I took the very hot comment to mean that, given the design, it was all but impossible.

[Statistical]

24. With a fuel handling machine it could be done.

I have no idea if it would be economical or practical but it could be done.

Current MK I design.
1) Flood containment so reactor is underwater (acts as radiation shield).
1) Remove reactor head (top).
3) Remove fuel rod with remotely operated fuel handling machine.
4) Place fuel rod in cooling pond with remotely operated fuel handling machine.
5) Repeat steps 4 & 5 until all old fuel removed.
6) Use fuel handling machine to load new fuel rods into reactor
7) Install reactor head.
8) Drain containment.

Modern design is basically the same thing except the cooling pond is "next door". There is a tunnel between the two buildings with a "trolley" which is remotely operated. The trolley transfers spent fuel from reactor room to fuel room and new fuel from fuel room to reactor room. Otherwise the process is the same. It takes about 2 week with 3 shifts running 24/7.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. GE does not own or control most of those reactors at this point

[denem]

6. I know that.

But they can an must issue the advisory..

[Statistical]

8. Tecnnically the NRC would need to issue the advisory.

They can and should. GE is a non entity at this point.

[denem]

13. OK, But GE is out there in the public square defending the Mk. 1

I guess they have to. The lawsuits would be horrendous.

[Statistical]

16. Exactly. They have absolutely no interest in bringing down the MK I

Remember GE is competing with other companies for building next generation reactors (Gen III+).

Also even IF GE denounced the MK I no plant operator would listen. They have a vested interest in keeping the plants running for as long as possible.

The only entity that could do anything and have it be useful would be the NRC.

[Statistical]

7. I support nuclear power and I agree.

The MK I is a horrible design. Still GE has no power in this decision. It must come from the NRC. The NRC has the ability to revoke any plant's license for any time and any reason. No advance warning need be given.

[denem]

12. It was my conversation with you yesterday that got me thinking.

Reactor 4 is the smoking gun.

[Statistical]

19. The worst thing about Reactor 4 is it was just shutdown like less than a month ago.

Since they are doing work on the core they removed all the fuel. This is VERY VERY VERY HOT fuel compared to the other fuel in the other ponds. Due to nuclear decay the longer it has been since active fission the lower the thermal output. New fuel is the hotest and thus the hardest to keep under control.

[denem]

23. Though a lot of this makes me wince,

I actually know something about nuclear reactor design now, rather than having a foggy idea, a "nuclear power" barrage ballon floating around the skies over an oil platform, if that's not too abstract. I read up on PWR's and the ABWR was was to be installed at Fukushima. It's been quite a ride.

[Statistical]

25. To bad this couldn't have happened to a design like ABWR or AP1000.

That would give the operators many more options. They are really working with the oldest, dangerous, most fragile systems ever invented in the western world. At least is has containment which so far is holding.

[denem]

26. That's why I will never think of a "Nuclear Reactor" the same way again.

I read up on the Chernobyl design a few years the event. Even to a layman the risks were obvious. I simply blamed that on blundering Soviet beaurocacy. The fact that Fukushima i No. 1. had been designed in the '60s came as quite a shock.

[Statistical]

27. Want to know an unpleasant reality.

No two reactors are alike, not even two "MK I" for example. They are all custom built, and have been changed, modified, retrofitted over the years. Each one has unique properties, issues, and characteristics. You can imagine all the potential problems that causes.

The NRC is trying to change that Gen III+ designs will be certified and each plant must be built and maintained to spec.

[dkofos]

9. Yeah right, haven't you heard, corporate personhood trumps your one vote.

[denem]

11. Fear and National Security are a powerful combination.

[bobbolink]

This isn't about a vote. Heard about Madison, Wisc.? It was in the news lately.

[dkofos]

28. Whoops I guess I forgot the

:sarcasm:

I thought it was obvious

[bobbolink]

20. dumb dupe

[Codeine]

14. This is why we never should have slowed our nuclear program in the first place.

Rapid and continuing rollout of new plants and superior technology would mean we wouldn't be sitting on outmoded reactor designs like these. A modern plant would have handled this crisis far more effectively. Allowing the forces of fear to paralyze the industry thirty years ago has crippled us.

The 60s called, and they want their nuclear plants back.

[denem]

17. The initial investment means the reactor must operate

over its design life to be economical. I agree, many US reactors must be past their use by dates.

[NYC_SKP]

29. Yep. There are 35 BWRs in the US. 23 of these are the General Electric Mark I Design.

The current problems in Japan were anticipated as far back as 1996 http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/bwrfact.htm

x(

23 US reactors share design with failed Japan nukes

March 14, 2011 6:00 AM

CHRIS KNAP
THE ORANGE COUNTY (CALIF.) REGISTER

There are 23 nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. using the same General Electric Mark 1 reactors as the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 that suffered a hydrogen explosion on Saturday and then again early Monday, according to a fact sheet just released by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a Maryland-based nuclear power watchdog group.

This design, a General Electric Mark I, has been criticized by nuclear experts and even Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff for decades as being susceptible to explosion and containment failure.

According to NIRS, 35 of the 110 operational nuclear power reactors in the United States, are boiling water reactors (BWR). General Electric is the sole designer and manufacturer of BWRs in the United States. The BWR’s distinguishing feature is that the reactor vessel serves as the boiler for the nuclear steam supply system. The steam is generated in the reactor vessel by the controlled fissioning of enriched uranium fuel which passes directly to the turbogenerator to generate electricity.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/reactors-114501-mark-failed.html

:patriot:

[jberryhill]

30. How does closing the plants, in your mind, empty the spent fuel pool?

I don't understand the connection you are making between shutting them down now and what's in the spent fuel pools?

It's not as if we have anywhere to take that spent fuel.

Phase them out? Sure. Don't forget to figure out whatever it is you are going to plug those Chevy Volts and Nissan Leafs into.