If a nuclear plant in the United States had a serious accident and the managers asked for help from a neighboring company, chances are that the nuclear Samaritans would arrive with radios that worked on a different frequency, or with emergency pumps that required hoses of a different size or pressure rating, industry officials say.
But three nuclear organizations said on Thursday that in response to Japan’s Fukushima accident, they are acting jointly to learn everything they can, seeking to reduce the risk of an accident and prepare for the consequences should one occur.
Presenting several goals in this effort were the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade association; the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which inspects all American reactors and audits their performance; and the Electric Power Research Institute, a technical consortium.
The first is not to get distracted.
“We have had this temptation at some of our stations, in a relatively impromptu fashion, to run a simulator sequence of what happened over there,’’ said Charles Pardee, the chief nuclear officer of the nuclear operator Exelon. The simulators are identical to the control rooms, but with a computer behind them rather than a reactor, and they are used to drill the operators on what should be done in emergencies. He said that programming them to mimic conditions in Fukushima was “really fascinating,” but he also made it sound a bit like playing solitaire on the office computer.
In the few hours every month that the crews get to use the simulators, he said, they should be focusing on their assigned curriculum — how to handle a pipe break, a pump failure, a valve that is stuck and so on — and not trying to duplicate Fukushima.
One reason, he said, is that no one is sure that the simulators realistically replicate such extreme conditions. Operators have essentially been conducting “what if” scenarios, which is counterproductive at this point, he said.
Other goals of the three nuclear organizations are confirming that American plants have an adequate safety margin for bigger-than-expected earthquakes or floods, and that spent pools of nuclear fuel would be adequately protected even if all electric power were lost, as it was at the Fukushima 4 reactor.
Neil Wilmshurst, a nuclear expert at the Electric Power Research Institute, based in Palo Alto, Calif., said his organization would delve into areas where new research is needed. For example, he said, there is much talk of whether nuclear plants should have batteries that last longer than the four-hour models now common. E.P.R.I., as the institute is known, will explore technological options in that area, he said.
The industry is acting in concert partly because, while many American companies offered help to Tokyo Electric Power after the Fukushima accident, the response was disorganized, industry professionals say.
“It was, at best, a pick-up game,’’ James O. Ellis Jr., the president and chief executive of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, said last month at a meeting in Washington. In the speech, a pep talk to industry leaders about striving for continuous improvement, he went on: “The events of the past weeks have clearly shown the benefits of significantly improving site-specific plans while moving beyond them to establishing and formalizing a national and even international response capability worthy of the name.’’
In other words, the nuclear operators should be ready to run to the rescue of any of them that gets into trouble.
Yet there is also a sense that the industry is trying to identify its problems and define solutions before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does it for them. “It depends on your perspective; is it a defensive posture, or aggressive posture?” Mr. Wilmshurst of the electric power institute said.
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Source: www.nytimes.com
But three nuclear organizations said on Thursday that in response to Japan’s Fukushima accident, they are acting jointly to learn everything they can, seeking to reduce the risk of an accident and prepare for the consequences should one occur.
Presenting several goals in this effort were the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade association; the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which inspects all American reactors and audits their performance; and the Electric Power Research Institute, a technical consortium.
The first is not to get distracted.
“We have had this temptation at some of our stations, in a relatively impromptu fashion, to run a simulator sequence of what happened over there,’’ said Charles Pardee, the chief nuclear officer of the nuclear operator Exelon. The simulators are identical to the control rooms, but with a computer behind them rather than a reactor, and they are used to drill the operators on what should be done in emergencies. He said that programming them to mimic conditions in Fukushima was “really fascinating,” but he also made it sound a bit like playing solitaire on the office computer.
In the few hours every month that the crews get to use the simulators, he said, they should be focusing on their assigned curriculum — how to handle a pipe break, a pump failure, a valve that is stuck and so on — and not trying to duplicate Fukushima.
One reason, he said, is that no one is sure that the simulators realistically replicate such extreme conditions. Operators have essentially been conducting “what if” scenarios, which is counterproductive at this point, he said.
Other goals of the three nuclear organizations are confirming that American plants have an adequate safety margin for bigger-than-expected earthquakes or floods, and that spent pools of nuclear fuel would be adequately protected even if all electric power were lost, as it was at the Fukushima 4 reactor.
Neil Wilmshurst, a nuclear expert at the Electric Power Research Institute, based in Palo Alto, Calif., said his organization would delve into areas where new research is needed. For example, he said, there is much talk of whether nuclear plants should have batteries that last longer than the four-hour models now common. E.P.R.I., as the institute is known, will explore technological options in that area, he said.
The industry is acting in concert partly because, while many American companies offered help to Tokyo Electric Power after the Fukushima accident, the response was disorganized, industry professionals say.
“It was, at best, a pick-up game,’’ James O. Ellis Jr., the president and chief executive of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, said last month at a meeting in Washington. In the speech, a pep talk to industry leaders about striving for continuous improvement, he went on: “The events of the past weeks have clearly shown the benefits of significantly improving site-specific plans while moving beyond them to establishing and formalizing a national and even international response capability worthy of the name.’’
In other words, the nuclear operators should be ready to run to the rescue of any of them that gets into trouble.
Yet there is also a sense that the industry is trying to identify its problems and define solutions before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does it for them. “It depends on your perspective; is it a defensive posture, or aggressive posture?” Mr. Wilmshurst of the electric power institute said.
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Source: www.nytimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment