Will Cracks and Corrosion Spoil the Birthday Bash?

Author: Edith Honan

This February, the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant will celebrate its 30th birthday. But hold the celebrations: aging reactors signal cracks, corrosion, metal fatigue and worse could make the event an unhappy one for the plant and its New England neighbors.
Many of these signs of aging are discovered during safety inspections conducted only when a nuclear reactor is offline -- such as periods when the nukes shut down to refuel or when they suffer an unexpected shutdown because of an equipment failure.
As first-generation reactors approach the latter years of their lifespan, operators are increasingly requesting that the interim periods between system safety inspections be extended.
That means less time spent offline, and fewer opportunities to discover cracks, corrosion and other indicators of reactor health.
According to a confidential report by the pro-nuclear Institute of Nuclear Power Operators publicized in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, there is room for concern: "Given today's competitive environment, pressure to continue operating may be a notable contributor to future significant events." Already, incidents of equipment failures have been linked to age.
"There's a big move on to reduce costs, to take tests that were once done monthly and now make them quarterly, and things that used to be done quarterly are now being done yearly, and so on," noted David Lochbaum, the nuclear safety engineer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who spent 17 years working in the nuclear industry.
"Aging equipment, coupled with fewer safety checks and inspections, makes it more likely that something will break or fail or be degraded below the prescribed safety margins, and not be detected before it is challenged," Lochbaum continued.
Logically, one might hope to put one's trust in the governmental regulator. After all, for what does the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) exist but to ensure that problems are identified and cured? A recent incident at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Ohio casts doubt on the NRC's true objective.
Last year, citing numerous safety violations at Davis-Besse, the NRC ordered that the reactor be shut down by Dec. 31, 2001. The reactor's owner, FirstEnergy, lobbied for a compromise: the plant would cease operations on Feb. 16, 2002, when a refueling outage would be due, and the NRC could use that opportunity to conduct safety inspections.
The NRC agreed. An NRC report from Nov. 30, 2001, stated: "After sufficient deliberation and increased management attention, it is the staff's judgment that sufficient information is available to justify operation of the Davis-Besse facilty until Feb. 16, 2002."
When the inspection was at last completed, it turned out that safety violations far exceeded what had already been projected. FirstEnergy, the plant's owner, discovered that water used to cool the reactor, which contains boric acid, had leaked onto the outer surface of the reactor vessel -- the metal structure which shields the core of the reactor -- eventually finding its way to the inner liner of the vessel.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the outer surface consists of carbon steel, which is vulnerable to boric acid corrosion, while the inner surface is made of stainless steel, which is resistant. Pressure from the reactor vessel pushed the inner wall outward, into the cavity formed by the corrosion.
Said the Union of Concerned Scientists: "The plant's owner ignored numerous warning signs spanning many years to create the reactor with a hole in its head."
The lesson of Davis-Besse is stark. Cautioned the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Child-like wonderment is endearing on Christmas morning. It is dangerously irresponsible when consistently applied to nuclear safety."
Unfortunately a slip-up at the hands of the regulator is not the only cause for concern.
Regardless of how judicious Entergy, the owner of Vermont Yankee, is at tracking the cracks and corrosion that accompanies the aging process of Vermont's only nuclear reactor, hazardous waste will continue to accumulate.
Even if the Yucca Mountain, Nev., waste disposal site does begin to accept radioactive waste (in spite of growing evidence of certain leakage) Vermonters will still have to foot at least part of the burden.
Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, who is a longtime supporter of Vermont Yankee, voted against the Yucca Mountain plan, issuing this warning to his constituents: "It is now clear that Yucca Mountain will only take part of the waste, leaving some, if not most, of the future waste that will be produced sitting along the banks of rivers, beside both our small local communities and our largest population centers. Vermonters need to know that under the Yucca 'solution' high level waste is still likely to be stored forever on the banks of the Connecticut River."
Vermonters -- not to mention residents of New Hampshire and Massachusetts residents, just across the border -- will soon mark the 30-year anniversary of living with a nuclear power plant.
Rather than becoming more comfortable with that presence, we must become increasingly vigilant. We should be asking: Are Entergy and the NRC looking out for our safety or for Vermont Yankee profits? Does the energy produced by the reactor make up for the waste that is produced by it, especially when renewable sources like solar and wind energy are available to be harnessed?