6 - Nuclear Power Plant Incidents Flashcards

1
Q

nuclear reactor basics

A

works by induced fissionMODERATOR: slows down reaction to keep free neutrons flowing; increase likelihood of further fissionCOOLANT: removes heat energy; maintains fuel temperatureCONTROL RODS: regulate fission by absorbing neutronsDO ONCE WHOLE CHAPTER COMPLETE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

meltdown

A

uranium melts!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

pressurized water reactor (PWR)

A

• WATER acts as moderator AND coolant• reactor heats water in primary system > heats water in secondary system > steam > drives turbine > generates electricity• steam condensed to water by tertiary system, which vents from cooling towers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

three mile island

A

.partial nuclear meltdown.worse accident in US commercial nuclear power plant history.two units on susquehanna river, near Harrisburg, PA.built in response to 1970s energy crisis + petroleum shortages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

march 28, 1979: 4:00:00am

A

.water leaks thru faulty seal into pneumatic AIR system-control valves for water pumps in secondary system to TRIP (shut down)-valve had failed 11 times before-yet no warnings from manufacturer, no changes to design.SO, secondary turbine + electrical generator shut down.tempe + pressure in primary system INCREASES,.reactor SCRAMS (emerg. shut down), control rods drop into reactor core > absorbing neutrons, stopping nuclear reaction.3 emerg. backup feedwater pumps start in secondary system (but were closed, and unable to pump any water!)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

march 28, 1979: 4:00:09am

A

.no water reaches 3 emergency backup feedwater pumps (closed for maintenance 2 days before!).this cited as a key failure.light signalling these lines were closed was COVERED by a maintenance tag (literally saying it was under repair).later singled out as a key failure!! this part.PORV, pilot operated relief opened to relieve excess pressure but did not close after!-this allowed radioactive coolant water to escape drain tank, causing LOCA (loss of coolant accident) BAD!!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

march 28, 1979: 4:02am

A

.EIW (emergency injection water) pumps start automatically, add water to primary system-BUT, guages show water rising, pressure falling, apparent paradox?? (b/c PORV open)-operators trained to never let reactor “go solid” (reaction stops) from overcooling (thought too much coolant available)-operators turn off EIW, problem grows-so EIW water rushes in and out through stuck open PORV, 30k litres of radioactive water discharged throughout building, no alarms triggered!-gauges show water level rising (but actualy falling) b/c of turbulence of water rushing out of PORV, sensors not reading properly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

march 28, 1979: 4:08am

A

• supervisor notices cutoff valves for emergency backup feedwater pumps in secondarysystem are off- opens cutoff valves, AVERTING a major disaster (would have been a crater!)• secondary cooling system now functioning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

march 28, 1979: 5:20am

A

• reactor coolant water  > steam > pumps shake violently- operators shut two pumps down; other pumps shut down 20 minutes later-shut down because scary, were shaking violently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

march 28, 1979: 6:15am, 6:20am

A

6:15am• decay heat from nuclear core boils off coolant water- nuclear core EXPOSED; zirconium cladding and uranium dioxide fuel starts to melt- intense radiation field causes H2O to split apart- H2O bubble forms  prevents cooling (but not enough O2 for explosion) - control rods release radioactive gases6:20am• operator from next shift notices PORV discharge temperature is high; shuts the backup block valve

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

march 28, 1979: 6:45am

A

.radiation alarms sound (350x normal levels!).site emergency declared, general emergency 15m later (danger to surrounding communities).debate: over whether core is exposed, reliability of temperature readings-normal core temp is 600F, was 4000+!-instruments to measure core temp not standard equipment-as part of uni research of core performance, thermocouples installed 30cm above core-read ?????????, if temp above 600F

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

march 28, 1979: 7:50pm

A

• primary cooling system pumps turned back on; core temperature under control!-many hours later!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Three Mile Island: human factors errors: over-reliance on…

A

• operator over-reliance on Emergency Procedures Manuals- Event-Based procedures used: operators have to identify a particular event to find actions to fix it (assumes you know what happened, they didn’t so useless!)- Symptoms-Based procedures now used: procedural actions are linked to specific plant symptoms (wouldn’t have helped then either, because they had poor readings!!! LOLOLOL)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Three Mile Island: human factors errors:

A

-site emergency not declared until 3 hours after incident, as req. by NRC-maintenance checklists for auxiliary feedwater pumps had been thrown away-NRC: inadequacies of equipment, operator training, and design-president’s commission: incident would have been minor if not for human failures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Three Mile Island: human factors errors: primary cause of incident?

A

.human intervention primary cause: human error due mostly to control CONTROL ROOM DESIGN-relief valve safety shutoff located on BACK of control panel-computer printer overwhelmed (didn’t print error message about relief valve till 3 hours later)-control panel instruments conflicted-100+ alarm lights triggered in 2 minutes-turning off audible alarm disabled visual “annunciators” (e.g. for radioactive water leak)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Sheridan (1981) conclusions of nuclear reactor display console reviews

A

number of features could easily lead to error under time-stressed circumstances1. left side of a pair of displays driven by right sight of a pair of controls (bad mapping!)2. panel meters unreadable a few feet away, but controls for meters 30ft away!3.critical displays located on BACK of panel!4.controls jutted out so operators accidentally activated with bodies5. ambiguous labels6. label on alarm “annunciators” different from labels in manual!! didn’t correspond!!

17
Q

Chernobyl

A

.worst power plant disaster in history in terms of cost and resulting deaths.one of 2 having 7 on scale of int’l nuclear event scale.four reactors along banks of Pripyat river, N of Kiev, Ukraine

18
Q

LWR (Light Water Reactors), not chernobyl!

A

.Light Water Reactors.boiling water reactor (BWR) or pressurized water reactor (PWR, 3 mile)-must be shut down for refueling-water acts as BOTH coolant and moderator-so loss means reaction stops

19
Q

Negative Void Coefficient

A

.steam less efficient coolant than water.steam does not act as moderator.excess steam pockets (“voids”) lead to decrease in power.this design requires HIGH-QUALITY enriched uraniumSEND EMAIL, what is this?

20
Q

RBMK (High Power Channel reactor) - russian acronym!!

A

-design allows refueling w/o reactor shutdown (cause russia wanted to be totally self-sufficient with nuclear power!)-intended for plutonium & power production-soviet union could not produce sufficient enriched uranium (neg. void coeff needs this), so couldn’t use water as moderator -has GRAPHITE moderator-water considered “poison” in this reactor type, too much is bad-water slows reaction and absorbs reaction, so loss of water coolant > reactor OUT OF CONTROL (positive void coefficient)-unstable at LOW power-no containment vessel of steel-reinforced concrete (soviet couldn’t afford!)

21
Q

Positive vs Negative Void Coefficient

A

Positive Void Coefficient.loss of coolant > reactor out of control (chernobyl)Negative Void Coefficient.loss of coolant > not so bad, thermal temp goes down

22
Q

Basis for Chernobyl Safety Test

A

-plant power supplies external electricity, but ALSO drives pumps that circulates its own coolant (could be catastrophic if shuts down!)-so what if reactor is shut down, not producing power?-would a “coasting” turbine provide enuf power to pump coolant until diesel generator back system started?-testing unit 4 safety margins, but test was rushed and performed WHILE it was operational! bad!!-unit 4 was rushed into service before testing was completed

23
Q

April 25, 1986. 1:06am Initial preperations for Unit 4 Chernobyl test

A

1:06: test scheduled prior to May Day holiday when performance targets reviewed13:05: power output gradually decreased to 50% (goal: 25% power)14:00: ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System DISENGAGED, would interrupt test14:05 THEN, regional power station in Kiev failed, electricity grid controller requests power demand be met-ECCS NOT reconnected! (b/c competing demands of test and kiev power)-experiment delayed from day to night shift (BAD!!)23:10-Unit 4 finally released from power grid-further reduction in power begun

24
Q

April 26, 1986. 00:28am Pre-test preperations Unit 4 Chernobyl test

A

00:28: power level at 500 MW(t); safe level at 700 MW(t). never should have gotten that low!-control transferred to automatic regulating system-operators neglect to program system autopilot (error!), power falls to 30!!! MW(t)00:32: Deputy Chief Engineer Dyatlov (recent promotion, eager to impress) orders increase in power-some control rods removed to boost power, leaving less than 26 in core (should never be

25
Q

April 26, 1986. 01:23am The Test: Unit 4 Chernobyl

A

1:23:04: operators override reactor trip safety mechanisms to keep reactor going if safety test failed first time-reactor power rises01:23:10: automatic control rods removed, only 6 left in!01:23:31: coolant flow & feedwater flow reduced > steam output increases and reactor output increases (b/c pos. void coefficient)01:23:40: reactor power SURGES-emergency! drop 205 rods into core -rods displaced water, increasing reactivity-graphite rod tips concentrated reactivity at core bottom (bad control rod design!)01:23:44: reactor power peaks at 100x design limits-reactor pellets shatter, react with coolant water01:24:00: two explosions occur-1st steam explosion, second, expansion from fuel vapor

26
Q

Chernobyl: short-term results

A

-8 tons solid nuclear fuel evaporate and released into atmosphere-2k ton metal plate sealing reactor blown off-200-1k x radiation of hiroshima + nagasaki released-high doses of radiation across europe, toxic isotopes sent into atmosphere and still remain today-260km sq land contaminated-concrete sarcophagus built to seal off damaged reactor

27
Q

Chernobyl: long-term results

A

-zone of alienation/exclusion 30km radius around chernobyl-increase childhood incidence of # of health conditions like diabetes, hard to get concrete numbers-9k cases of thyroid cancer (6k baseline)-mortality estimates 4k-90k!-new safe containment shelter to be completed in 2015, cost 1.4 billion.cost of disaster, $200-400 billion, MOST EXPENSIVE disaster in history, unanimous agreement

28
Q

Main contributing factors to chernobyl:

A
  1. reactor design-positive void coefficient-control rod design (graphite rod tips, focused reactivity at core bottom)2. non-routine operation of reactor-ran circulating pumps at inflated levels-disengaging automatic trip when turbines went offline (in case safety test failed first time, remember? to keep it going to try again)3. Violation of operating regulations-too many control rods removed, too far-power went below specified levels-emergency core cooling system (ECCS) disengaged b/c would interrupt test NOOO4. Lack of a “safety culture”-“attitudes, beliefs, values that employees share in relation to safety”-HOW MUCH do you value safety? do you value it above all else?-mismanagement-operators lacked fundamental knowledge of reactorroot cause after massive investigation: human element-design, attitudes, safety culture, came together in worst possible way
29
Q

Meshkati (1996) study concluded what about nuclear systems failures?

A

65% of nuclear systems failures involve human errornuclear power plants should be examined on 3 levels:1. human2. organizational3. technologicalspecifically, there should be an overhaul in:-design-construction-training-operation-regulatory oversight