Japan’s ongoing nuclear power disaster may be giving the industry a Chernobyl-sized black eye, but to those in the business not all power plant projects are the same.
Advocates for the South Texas Project nuclear plant about 90 miles southwest of Houston near Bay City point to differences between it and the troubled units at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima Daiichi plant.
The first is location. Fukushima is on the coast in one of the most active seismic zones in the world, while STP is about 11 miles inland from Matagorda Bay in a seismic zone rated zero – signifying the lowest earthquake probability.
Fukushima’s coastal location probably contributed to the catastrophe there. Officials reported that diesel generators responsible for providing backup power to cooling pumps were swamped by tsunamis that followed last Friday’s massive earthquake.
The South Texas Project is about 29 feet above sea level, spokesman Buddy Eller said, and appears capable of withstanding the extreme storm events that are most likely for the region.
A study looking at the possible impacts of a combined Category 5 hurricane storm surge and a 100-year flood on the Colorado River that runs adjacent to the plant site found water levels would rise to just under 28 feet.
The plant also has three separate, redundant diesel back-up systems to run all of its on-site systems, including the reactor cooling. They’re located in steel-reinforced concrete buildings designed to withstand hurricanes and storm surges, said Eller.
There’s also an age difference. The Fukushima units are 30 to 40 years old. South Texas Project Unit 1 went online in 1988 and Unit 2 in 1989, making them the sixth- and fourth-youngest units in the U.S.
The Japanese and Texas plants also use different reactor designs.
In Fukushima’s Boiling Water Reactors (BWR), water runs through the nuclear reactor and boils into steam that turns power generation turbines.
In STP’s Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), reactor water is heated under pressure but does not boil, and moves in a closed loop. The hot water in the loop boils water in a separate vessel into steam that runs the electric turbines.
In both designs, steam flows from the turbines to a condenser that cools it into a liquid to repeat cycle.
South Texas Project operators also want to add two new reactors, using an updated version of the ABWR design. Eller noted they would include the same triple-redundant power backup systems and have the same location advantages.
But opponents object to the expansion of the South Texas Project, and asked regulators in a filing this week not to extend the licenses for its existing units.
“We are learning the lessons of nuclear disaster the hard way right now, as the world watches in horror the meltdown of nuclear reactors in Japan,” said Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition.
SEED contends the license extension fails to address adequately the plants’ ability to deal with serious fires and explosions, and fails to justify the extension in light of increased efficiency options.
Also raising concern in some quarters is the involvement of Tokyo Electric — operator of the Fukushima plants — in the proposed South Texas expansion (if it does happen).
In 2003 the company was forced to temporarily close all 17 of its nuclear power plants in Japan after admitting it faked safety reports for more than a decade.
Tokyo Electric would not be an operator of the proposed new South Texas units, but it has a 10 percent financial stake.
Analysts expect Tokyo Electric may be hard-pressed to meet its financial obligations to the STP expansion. In addition to the likely destruction of most or all of the Fukushima reactor units, the company faces significant costs rebuilding much of Japan’s basic electric infrastructure damaged by the earthquake and tsunami.
The reactors @ the Fukushima Daiichi plant are only BWR’s, not ABWR’s. The BWR’s in question are 60?s technology that went online in the 70?s. The Advanced BWR’s proposed for STP are a large (1350MW each) design with numerous safety enhancements.
It should be noted that the problematic reactors at Fukushima I share a
common thread: Their auxiliary power source (diesel gensets) was knocked out by the tsunami. Another site, Fukushima II, is seven miles away, but we’re not hearing about it. Yet another site, Onagawa, was even closer to the epicenter. It had a fire early on, but it doesn’t appear to be a problem now either.
Only one problem with this – STNP was only designed to withstand a CATEGORY 1 Hurricane (i.e. an IKE) – not a 2, 3, 4 (think Rita, Katrina).
THAT is its biggest vulnerability. With Hurricanes becoming more powerful from warming oceans, this is a concern.
Don’t forget, Houston lies DOWNWIND of STNP with the prevailing breeze. I was at Brown & Root part of the time it was built. It was their first nuke plant. Bechtel had to be called in to finish it. So who knows how ‘secure’ it would be in a CAT 2, 3 storm…
We can’t keep a good many power plants running when the temp is 20 degrees and yet we are to believe the backup cooling generators will withstand a Hurricane of 3 or better? I’d want more proof than “it’s newer and we are learning” plus too many of the same players who have made mistakes before are involved. Need more convincing.
My concern at this and other locals is terrorism. It is my fear that while we are shaking down children and old folks at the auitrport,
part two , sorry baby hit me ( little terrorist)and the keyboard in mis d setntence.
Anyway, from what I know a group of well armed terrorists can easily penetrate the silly security “force ” at these plants. I do not understand why we can station hundreds of thousands of fully armed troop who are not even allowed engage the enemy without “permision” over there, yet we cannot even put a fully armed compamy on the premise of these comme and get your nuclear bomb facilities. Geez, a platoon of at the gate National guards is at least warranterd.
And you are right ,commentor above, we are down wind.
If I am wrong and these places are militarily secure from land attack , will someone kindly correct me so that I can put this fear to rest. No suppositions allowed please.
Milkbone, nuclear power plants are not “come and get your nuclear bomb” sites. Taking the fuel out of a power plant takes months and special training. Blowing up the reactors would be extremely difficult, and even if successful, would contaminate only the region near the plant.
Mr. Fjetland, the prevailing wind on the Texas coast is from the Southeast. That puts San Antonio at more risk than Houston.
We need to build more nuclear, and more advanced designs such as MSR which resolve the waste issue and produce cheap power. Save the natural gas for things it’s good for like powering transportation. SEED needs to go dig a hole and bury itself. when they live in a cave and eat bugs I’ll be willing to listen to their arguments against progress. Until then, they are simply vampires to our standard of living.
The difference is, these plants in Japan were built decades ago. That’s the difference. The only things that haven’t been improved on in that time are stopping illegal immigrants and deprogramming Bush Hating Palin Hating Mental Liberals.
Everything else has IMPROVED UPON THEM AND ITSELF in the past decade while they’ve mired themselves in Rabid Psychotic BDS….. EVERYTHING/ONE.
ALL BUILT IN THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, WHERE LIBERALS STILL LIVE AS WELL, WOODSTOCK HIPPIES.
Mr. Fjetland:
A hurricane cannot “sneak up” on a nuclear power plant. All reactors are required to shutdown (Mode 0) in the event of the approach of a hurricane – that is why no one heard of problems at grand gulf during Katrina (only 120 from land fall). Therefore the plant will already be in a safe shut down condition. Additionally, while some structures may only be designed to withstand 75 mph conditions, the containment structure will be substantially more robust. Couple that with the fact that a hurricane will at most last 12-15 hours, recovery operations can begin to repair/replace out of service components long before overheating occurs.
I don’t think the scenario you postulated is a real concern to the good folks of Houston.
Fjetland
Only one problem with this – STNP was only designed to withstand a CATEGORY 1 Hurricane (i.e. an IKE) – not a 2, 3, 4 (think Rita, Katrina).
THAT is its biggest vulnerability. With Hurricanes becoming more powerful from warming oceans, this is a concern.
Don’t forget, Houston lies DOWNWIND of STNP with the prevailing breeze. I was at Brown & Root part of the time it was built. It was their first nuke plant. Bechtel had to be called in to finish it. So who knows how ‘secure’ it would be in a CAT 2, 3 storm…
STP safety systems are designed against cat 5 hurricanes. And as mentioned, units are shutdown ahead of landfall and dangerous winds. The security force is well trained and well numbered. Among their qualifications is sniper quals. Advanced detection systems and many many cameras with backup computers and their own back up diesel generators help monitor the plant. The security force has unannounced and announced drills regularly and security consultants including ex-navy seals help ensure the perimiter is secure anytime of the day or night.