Backup power for our us reactors and storage pools

So in the event of multi-day a grid failure such as from an X-class flare, we would have the ability to bring backup diesel generators to each and every of our 104 reactors before the onsite ones run out,

And in the event of an earthquake, flood or fire, we have the ability to bring in those backup generators without the need for roads to bring them in upon,

And all our reactors are kept in tip-top shape with nary a corner cut, and repeatedly tested for performance under emergency conditions, and when tested always pass for flying colors?

The US nuclear industry is whining a heck of lot about the expense of adding some basic stopgap procedures that may minutely lower our risk of what will still one day, sooner or alter (and it looks like sooner with the current climate problems and unusual solar behavior) make Fukushima look like nothing, and Chernobyl just a joke. Don't any of the higher ups have children, or perhaps even grandchildren?

JSA Photonics has developed a battery sensor technology that will yield 24/7 remote functional assurance of charge levels. We would like to bring this development to the attention of the NRC as something worth looking at for reactor safety consideration. A POC would be appreciated.

US mulls backup-battery rule after Japan nuclear crisis
By Andrew Restuccia - 03/29/11 12:44 PM ET
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider requiring that U.S. nuclear power plants have backup batteries that last longer in the event of a power outage at a reactor.

The NRC will take battery life into account as part of a broad, two-part review of the country’s 104 nuclear reactors initiated in the aftermath of the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan.

The review will also look at emergency preparedness and spent fuel pool designs, among other things.

“There’s a wide range of topics. Almost nothing is off the table,” NRC Executive Director for Operations Bill Borchardt told reporters Tuesday.
Borchardt testified at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee briefing on the disaster in Japan, in which an earthquake and resulting tsunami knocked out power to the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, causing reactor cores to overheat.

It’s the first of several briefings on the issue slated for this week. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko will testify in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday and the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

Borchardt told reporters following the Senate Energy briefing that he is confident that backup batteries at U.S. nuclear reactors will work. But he said a review of U.S. nuclear safety should take into account extending battery life.

“I think the question of how long they need to operable is a very good question. That’s clearly one of the things that we’re going to be looking at,” he said.

The NRC’s station blackout rule requires operators to conduct an analysis of what would happen in the event of a power outage at a reactor, a similar scenario to what took place in Japan.

The rule does not impose regulatory requirements on operators. It instead allows operators to develop their own plan for responding to a blackout, Borchardt said.

“Different sites could come up with different approaches,” he said. “Some have installed gas turbines as a backup. Others have installed batteries that last for different time periods.”

Borchardt said the average battery at a U.S. plant lasts between four and eight hours.

A review of battery life will be part of an initial 90-day review of nuclear safety. The NRC will then determine whether to take immediate action or fold the review into a longer-term assessment that will be conducted after the U.S. gathers more information about the Japanese disaster.

Borchardt also said that U.S. nuclear relicensing will likely not be sidelined by the broad NRC review of reactors.

“The way the NRC would do our license renewal reviews, I don’t anticipate it changing,” Borchardt said.

If the NRC’s broad review necessitates design changes, those would be required across the U.S. nuclear fleet, rather than as part of the relicensing process.

“[I]f we believe there’s a design change that’s necessary that we think needs to be imposed, we’re not going to do that as part of the license renewal review,” Borchardt said. “We’ll do that based on the 104 licensed reactors right now. We won’t wait.”

More broadly, Borchardt offered an optimistic view of the crisis in Japan.

“The situation in general continues to further stabilize, although there are many hurdles that remain,” he told lawmakers at the briefing.

Comments (10)

More happy talk:

"The situation in general continues to further stabilize, although there are many hurdles that remain,”

Hurdles? How about a full core meltdown at Unit 2:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear...
BY JOHN POWALSKI on 03/29/2011 at 13:38
I supported nuclear power prior to Japan's earthquake of 2011. The waste was a manageable problem. But the potential of a meltdown is always present no matter what conservative precautions are taken. And a meltdown is equivalent to loading the nuclear waste in a fleet of crop-dusters and spraying it over cities, rivers, countryside.

IT IS NOT WORTH THE RISK.
BY STOP NUCLEAR ENERGY on 03/30/2011 at 00:04
The fact remains that no member of the public has been killed due to radiation so far, but the tsunami and earthquake killed tens of thousands. If these Japanese plants had been coal plants, there would have been additional hundreds of thousands of deaths from air pollution. Mr. Powalski should recall that most of the core at Three Mile Island melted, with no measureable health effects on the public. In other words, a melted core is not a public health disaster.
BY ROGER BLOMQUIST on 03/30/2011 at 11:06
If you don't want nuclear power, go live in a cold dark cave. you should start soon as without nuclear power, that will be all we will have. This type of accident just puts in more requirements for the nuclear plants to meet.
BY PETE0097 on 03/30/2011 at 11:18
I believe the following issues need review:
(1) The emergency diesel generator 7-day tank seismic and flood protection must assure continued 7-day operation of the emergency power system. (That all DG's in Japan ran out of fuel after only one hour of operation needs to be understood.)
(2) Ensuring that emergency venting of hydrogen through the stack can be achieved even in station blackout, preferably through mechanical means, for example spring loaded valves or air operated valves with pressurized air drums
(3) Fuel pool cooling and emergency water sources enhancement, as well as protection against terror attack is now required
BY MILAD A MILAD on 03/30/2011 at 11:39
Instead of stopping Nuclear Energy, we need to outlaw living on the coast near fault lines. Over 10,000 people were killed because of this wreakless behavior.
BY STOPOCEANSIDELIVING on 03/30/2011 at 11:47
Great points, Milad A Milad.
BY MAL on 03/30/2011 at 11:49
Has anyone considered the cultural differences between Japan and the US? In Japan, we see a continual understatement of the severity of the events due to their cultural need for 'saving face'. In the U.S., we have INPO, an industry run organization that is more critical and strict than the NRC. We undergo constant scrutiny and are rewarded for being self-critical. There is also a tremendous amount of cooperation between owners and even among competitors. I think that what is going on in Japan is a great tragedy, but I think that the severity of it is extremely unlikely because of our resources and culture.
BY GREG on 03/30/2011 at 12:14
Greg, that is one of the most on target comments I have seen since this whole tragedy started. Having been in the business for some 32 years I can't agree with you more. The changes in culture, self policing, and communications among the industry has been incredible. I believe if other industries and countries adapted the type of culture we have in the nuclear industry here a lot of potential problems and disasters would be averted. Imagine if the oil companies had that culture, the gulf spill probably would never have happened.
BY STEVE on 03/30/2011 at 14:12
To get everyone back on the subject, with NRC adding more requirements to Nuclear Plants…Consumer s need to know that whatever added designs and constraints NRC puts on existing nuclear plants, will not just trickle down to the consumers but will be a tsunami of costs passed on to the electricity consumer (i.e., you and I). I willing to live what the existing designs if the cost of electricity doesn't increase everytime a nuc plant has a failure. Think about it, Oil prices change just because a country has an uprising, Now we want to do the same for nuclear ! The risk of nuclear is worth the savings in my electric back pocket.
BY R. S. on 03/31/2011 at 14:03.

Your Comments

Submit CommentClear

The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | Opinion
View News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & Infrastructure

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/152443-us-mulls-back-up-bat...