Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Dropped Nuclear Rule Meant to Avert Hydrogen Explosions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:41 AM
Original message
U.S. Dropped Nuclear Rule Meant to Avert Hydrogen Explosions
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/u-s-dropped-nuclear-rule-meant-to-avert-hydrogen-explosions/

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has allowed reactors to phase out some equipment that eliminates explosive hydrogen, the gas that blew up the outer containments of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. The commission says it judged that at the American plants, the containments were strong enough that the equipment was not needed or other methods would do.

After the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, many reactors were required to install “hydrogen recombiners,” which attach potentially explosive hydrogen atoms to oxygen to make water instead. At Three Mile Island, engineers learned that hot fuel could interact with steam to give off hydrogen. That caused the plant’s reactor to suffer a hydrogen explosion, although it did not seriously damage its containment. By contrast, the secondary containments at Fukushima Daiichi blew apart when hydrogen detonated inside them.

The change in commission policy was pointed out this week by a nuclear safety critic, Paul M. Blanch, who said that he had been involved in installing such equipment at Millstone 3, a nuclear reactor in Waterford, Conn.

“Post-Three Mile Island, they were considered very important to safety,’’ Mr. Blanch said. He accused the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of having “gutted the rule’’ because the industry wanted to save money.

snip>

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that it changed the rules in 2003 as part of an “ongoing effort to risk-inform its regulations,’’ meaning adjust its rules to reflect actual risk to reactors. At issue were “design basis accidents” and “severe” accidents, which are worse.

more>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. In 2003, under the Bush administration
Let's at least be clear about that. Why that information is put in paragraph 10 of this blog article bewilders me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It shouldn't be a bewilderment
With our media, they will do anything they can to protect the right while making it look like the left is rotten to the core.

It is not accidental.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Because the story is about the nuclear power regulatory culture in the US. Nobody said anything
Edited on Thu Mar-31-11 12:07 PM by enough
about this being a recent development. We're talking about reactors that have been around for many years, and a regulatory system that has been more and more subservient to the industry over the decades. This is not about new developments, it's about possibly waking up to what has been going on for a long time.

And by the way, I specifically included the paragraph about the fact that this happened in 2003, in order to emphasize the fact that this happened in the Bush Administration. I think we can assume that the regulators were extremely cooperative with industry during those years.

But the major point is that we have to start paying attention the state of regulation of these reactors all over the country, and hopefully bringing public pressure for change where it is needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. People who read only headlines (most people) won't see that ...
I noticed and appreciated that you included the way-down paragraph that includes the date. I was questioning the Times headline, which suggests (through a sin of omission) that this happened recently.

I merely wanted to highlight the fact that the deregulation came under the Bush administration, because I feel it's always important to recognize that Republican administrations deregulate without respect to safety in many different situations, not just nuclear. It's an important fact to stress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Imagine NO NRC?
The NRC has saved our asses time and again.
Now they can really do their thing and save a whole lot of misery.

The price tag for closing down these nukes is gonna be huge.
How about a huge tax on excess electricity use?
That excessive consumption is what drives the need, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well, we can't have so much of that there government regulation.
The invisible hand of the market will just waive that hydrogen away.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Yes just like BP waived all the oil away Hooray! LOL!
We can trust the Nukular companies to clean up the dead bodies I mean the waste ASAP. Have no fear Corporations are here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is worth some letters to the editors nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC