How We Almost Blew Up Ohio
NEWS: Nuclear regulators blame plant employees for a near miss at Davis-Besse power station. Maybe it's the regulators we should be worried about.
April 28, 2008
|
|
After inspecting a reactor during a refueling outage in late April 2000, Andrew Siemaszko, a systems engineer at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Ohio, wrote on an official plant work order the four words that would one day ruin his life: "Work performed without deviation." Two years later, during a subsequent refueling outage, workers discovered that boric acid deposits had gnawed a rusty, "pineapple-sized" hole almost clear through the six-inch-thick steel cap bolted to the top of the reactor. Had the corrosion gone a third of an inch deeper, through the steel cladding inside the reactor vessel, radioactive steam would have flooded the reactor's containment dome, and Davis-Besse might have become the next Three Mile Island.
Plant operator FirstEnergy ultimately fired Siemaszko, claiming he had failed to report the corrosion. Five years after the incident, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) barred him from working in the nuclear industry for at least the following five years, and Siemaszko, along with plant engineering manager David Geisen, was indicted in early 2006 on five counts of lying to the government and falsifying records. Besse-Davis contractor and consultant Rodney Cook was charged with four counts of the same.
But Siemaszko and his defenders—which include the Union of Concerned Scientists and Ohio Citizen Action—insist he never deceived anyone. To the contrary, documents prove the engineer had repeatedly told his bosses that the reactor head needed a thorough cleaning. Siemaszko's four infamous words clearly referred to another maintenance task he had performed, which involved replacing hard plastic covers on the reactor head. He'd even written out instructions for a work crew to scrub the reactor, and personally participated in the cleaning three days later. But FirstEnergy refused to let the crew complete the job, Siemaszko alleges, because the workers had exceeded their allowed radiation dose and the shutdown was costing the company—a nuclear plant in production earns up to $1 million a day.
In reactors like the one at Davis-Besse, highly pressurized water laced with boric acid is used to regulate the core temperature and moderate the neutrons that sustain the atomic chain reaction. Had the acid corrosion been ignored for another few months, or even weeks, the water might have exploded out of the reactor and into the containment dome, risking overheating and meltdown of the core.
But neither FirstEnergy nor the NRC has evidence showing that Siemaszko was responsible for the corrosion, or ever lied to his supervisors about the problem. The NRC, in fact, had ordered the reactor shut down for inspection in December 2001 due to the company's failure to satisfy safety criteria, according to Union of Concerned Scientists' nuclear-safety expert Dave Lochbaum. But at FirstEnergy's request, the commission agreed to delay its inspection to coincide with a refueling outage that took place in March 2002. "NRC's senior managers shelved the draft order because it would have cost the company money," Lochbaum says.
In any case, the problem should already have been evident, if not to FirstEnergy then at least to the NRC: In a November 2001 briefing for one of the commission's top executives, agency staffers noted that certain parts of the reactor head couldn't be inspected because they were "obscured by boric acid." Later, after the hole was discovered, staffers noted that an "inspection conducted in 1998 was more limited in scope and quality because of the presence of boric acid deposits." And in 2004, a Government Accountability Office investigation acknowledged that at least one on-site NRC inspector had seen a photo of the reactor head streaked with rust-colored boric acid in the spring of 2000, "but did not recognize its significance."
Industry watchdogs, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, say the Davis-Besse scare highlights a history of regulatory neglect that harkens back to the agency's founding—the NRC was born in 1974 from the ruins of the booster-driven Atomic Energy Commission. The UCS has tallied 47 incidents since 1979 in which the commission failed to adequately address safety issues until the problems forced plant shutdowns. In some cases, the UCS reports, "the NRC allowed reactors with known safety problems to continue operating for months, sometimes years, without requiring owners to fix the problems."
The commission is still industry funded—albeit indirectly—in the form of fees, prompting no less than Senator Barack Obama, a cautious supporter of nuclear energy, to declare it "a moribund agency…captive of the industries that it regulates." NRC spokesman Scott Burnell insists that because industry fees are first routed through the U.S. Treasury, they create no conflict of interest. "It's not a case where the industry is handing us a check," he says.
But with Davis-Besse, it's a case of an industry-dependent regulatory agency disciplining plant employees to make it appear that justice has been done. Siemaszko, whose trial is scheduled for August 11, now lives in Texas, where he works as a contractor, supporting his wife and children on a small fraction what he once earned as a nuclear plant engineer. "I spent 20 years getting to where I got," he told Cleveland Plain Dealer science writer John Mangels in June 2005, prior to his indictment. "I spent 20 years listening to the Polack jokes. Finally I got to the highest level in my profession. Now I'm 51 years old and I'm back to entry level. I have no money, no profession. This is a tremendous blow."
I have found most of your opinion pieces display a reasonable amount of objectivity and balance. However, this one disappoints.
First, the title (perhaps you did not write it)… Davis Bessie or any other US nuclear power plant cannot “blow up.” I think you know better, too. The nuclear fuel used in power plants does not have enough “bomb grade” material to explode. The best parallel is to ask “when is the last time you had a bran muffin explode?” The answer of course is never. But the same thing that makes up your muffin, wheat, in another form, is very explosive and has killed hundreds of people in this country.
Secondly, the UCS has an agenda. They enjoyed $16.2M income in 2005 and expenses of $12.5M – that’s a nice profit for a non-profit organization. Their highest paid officers/directors/employees range from $186K to $90K per year. Interestingly, David Lochbaum is not listed as a corporate officer, director or in the top five highest paid employees. That said, Mr. Lochbaum makes his living being a mouthpiece for UCS – and that is just fine. But remember, without a boogey man, activists and their organizations have no purpose.
Apparently MJ has an agenda as well since they and in this case, you, typically quote only those “experts” that are biased against nuclear power.
Regarding industry money going to the regulator… each nuclear site pays several million dollars per year to be regulated. In addition, the NRC charges about $240/hour for each inspector that comes to the site. These are “user fees” – the other option is to just raise your income taxes to pay for this regulation. I can tell you that the inspectors I deal with are straight arrows. For example, if I invited you to luncheon meeting to speak to my people, you would not expect to pay for your cold turkey sandwich and Diet Pepsi. Not so NRC members… they will either refuse my “free lunch” or pay for it themselves.
For more info on the NRC see
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html
For info on a special NRC task force and the “lessons learned” regarding Davis Besse see
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/op erating/ops-experience/vessel- head-degradation/lessons-learned/le ssons-learned-files/smrt-report-ml023260433.pdf
Regarding the gentlemen whose careers and lives were forever changed…the term “scapegoats” comes to mind. I do have some familiarity with the situation and some opinions. However, no facts that either support or refute the situation of Mr. Siemaszko.
Living within 30 miles of D-B does not make one an authority on anything except the knowledge of one’s address.
After reading the above article's headline, "How We Almost Blew Up Ohio," I stated that D-B or any other nuclear power plant cannot explode like a nuclear weapon.
However, to your point…of course, any fluid under pressure could reach a point where the vessel holding it ruptures. This is exactly what happened at Chernobyl. Liquid water was converted to steam in an instant, a 1 to 100 expansion in volume, and the reactor coolant system piping and relief valves could not hold that pressure.
This was not the case at D-B. In the D-B case, the system was at a steady-state pressure and U.S. plant designs preclude the chance of such rapid pressure increases. Had the final layer of stainless steel in the reactor pressure vessel ruptured, water would have boiled off, but there would be no explosion. In fact, the system pressure would decrease when the reactor was shut down and emergency cooling water systems actuated. The steam release would be contained within the reactor building or “containment” structure, which is very large and designed to withstand a great deal of pressure. At some point in this imagined scenario, it is possible that the containment spray system could have actuated. This is a system of sprinklers that rains down on and cools the steam condensing it to water and reducing the containment pressure buildup long before the containment structure pressure rating is challenged.
As far as cores melting down – you skipped a few steps there. First, the core is unlikely to melt down. In fact, TMI did melt 97% of its core and guess what - it stayed right in the reactor vessel where it was supposed to. It did not melt through the reactor vessel, through the 13 feet of concrete in the bottom of the building, and through the earth to China. The entire China Syndrome scenario is total make believe. This is why people of science do studies and “fancy research” – to make decisions based upon facts versus feelings, boogeyman stories, and alarmists’ emotional rants.
All of the above does not excuse the poor job First Energy did in managing D-B during the time leading up to the discovery of the degraded reactor pressure vessel head. Other stakeholders, including the NRC, share some blame as well. I know this from not only the extensive research and reporting done since this event, but also first hand - I was called in as in industry expert to review actions taken after the discovery of this issue, even though I live more than 30 miles from D-B.
=]
so yeah i have to go and [deleted] my wife named tina the tiger.....
=]]
It's fat Albert.
I like your page
bye bye.
I hate science articles but was forced 2 read this
Ashley and Nicole: That said, I can appreciate the fact you think the article "stinks" or is "strange." If I was forced to read art history of the 18th century I would say it stinks and strange regardless of how well it was written!
These matters do involve a lot of science...and true science is based on facts, not opinions. I think that is one reason many people are easily led astray on nuclear power. The science is complex but well understood and managed. If one does not understand the science, they are left to go with their feelings or what some activist says is true, even when it isn't.
I have worked with literally 1000s of people in this area - so if you have questions, I will tell you the truth.
By the way, this Barry Wallace guy sure sounds alot like and NRC employee. (Doug is that you in there writing under the pseudonym of 'Barry Wallace'?)
Sorry to disappoint... I work for a nuclear utility.
You are correct on the nuclear navy influence in our industry. I was never in the military but I learned quickly, even before Tom Clancy, about "clearing baffles", going to "battle short" and unsanctioned trips up the Volga. The best on the secret submarine service is a book called "Blind Man's Bluff" -- it was recommended by a good friend who took pictures of a certain Soviet Union river bank naval installation through his sub's periscope during the Cold War. It was a captain's badge of honor to show off to his other sub buddies. Unfortunately, that bravado and expectation of command and control has infiltrated our industry, at the NRC, NEI, INPO, and EIEIO organizations.
That said... you can find jerks in any organization, navy or army or boy scouts.
The viability and benefits of energy options should not rest on the extent of how deep good ol boy clubs run. If that was the case, we never would have a Constitution!
Completely untrustworthy.
If nuclear power is so safe, the owners of the plants should be required by law to LIVE in the plants, along with their families.
Then we shall see what we see.
Thank you, Mr. Wallace, for your accurate and very intelligent response to this truly biased article. I found I had to will myself to continue reading past a certain point.
I can relate to what you say about the "good 'ol boy's" club. I am currently a DoD contractor; and wonder where the glass ceiling truly hovers in regard to my current station.
I agree in part with some opinions on this page regarding where fault really lies in situations like this one. It takes a plant manager with a belly FULL of guts to say to the CEO or COO of their company "...no...delayed restart...yes, we are losing money..." Plus, add to that the additional time that would need to be spent writing and approving procedures for specific occurrences. Man, that is a lot of money.
The term 'scapegoat' definitely comes to mind when viewing Mr. Siemaszko's predicament. I do not know, however, that the dire straits the author portrays the family to now suffer are realistic. It would be a tremendous blow to my ego and my lifestyle were that to happen to me, though.
After all is said and done, I do NOT consider any nuclear operator to be "completely untrustworthy". In fact, I would lean toward the opposite. As far as forcing plant owners to live on their plant sites - that is just plain unfair! Although, I wouldn't mind living at North Anna if I had a boat!!!
The idea of making a profit does drive our economy and you can thank that drive for providing you the opportunity to become independently wealthy and/or enjoy a very high standard of living. The same drive is providing incentives to develop wind and solar power projects - do you think those companies build these products for free? They too are driven by a profit motive.
Making money is not an evil thing. In fact, if we did not have people and companies making money, who would pay taxes? Where do you do think government gets the money to provide you services?
In my experience, the people that complain about busineses making money are for the most part either lazy, or people who have failed and given up, or people perpetually on some sort of welfare, or people who stand to personally gain from creating dissent.
If you truly believe you have identified a safety issue, I would not hestitate in providing that research to the NRC.
If you have in fact followed the proper channels, including your company's Employee Concern's Program and the NRC - see info at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regula tory/allegations/safety-concern.html - feel free to discuss this with me. If you like, let me know in this forum and we can dialogue on the specifics.