Nuclear Near-miss

[Harps]

Hey folks,

 

I wanna know what the general thought on this is...

 

Was the former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission right to shut down the reactor and refuse to start it up;

 

Or was the gov't right to force it to run??

 

CBC article here:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/29/...en.html?ref=rss

 

Personally I think the risk was too high, and I would have refused to start it. Less flak over that, than wiping out eastern Canada...

[Brownstone]

plant been running under these conditions for how long? let it run and force the safety upgrades, WTF is a company that has a gobal semi-monopoly on medical isotopes doing with sub par safety standards anyway?

[birchy]

Better safe than sorry I always say..

[reevesr1]

No way to find out what the real issues are from a CBC story about a process that is essentially political. I will say this:

 

I've done safety and risk assessments. There is absolutely no way that she knows if the chance of accident is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 1,000,000 on something as complex as a nuclear power plant.

 

And Harps, I know you were using a bit of hyperbole, but wiping out Eastern Canada? This ain't Chernobyl we are talking about. When I buy you that beer I'll tell you all about Three Mile Island (I had to study the accident as part of my Navy nuclear training). This will sound funny, and I'll get tons of flak, but TMI is actually a testament to the safety of the plants. With all they did wrong and the plant did not end up in China, tells me that they are a whole bunch safer than many would have us believe.

 

Birchy,

Better safe than sorry is fine, it it's really safety you are after. But all too often safety is used as an excuse to do nothing.

[lonefisher]

Not gonna lie I just skimmed the article and though I am not opposed to Nuclear power in this case the repairs should have been made and then it should have been fired up...... But I know absolutely nothing about nuclear power so its simply an uneducated opinion

[hydropsyche]

I guess if my 8yr daughter had cancer, I would live with the risk (that was there for who knows how long. "including two water pumps that didn't have emergency backup power" - since day one????).

 

I'm sure its now a top priority.

[gustuphson]

Didn't read the CBC article but voted no based on the bits I've caught in passing. Wiping out Eastern Canada would be a bad thing?

[Highlander]

Lets see then. If all of the worlds 443 nuclear reactors were allowed to run with a 1:1000 annual probability of failure, that could mean about one Chernobyl or Three Mile Island every two years.

 

The politicians should be fired, not the bureaucrat. Fu@*ing Idiots!!!!!

[reevesr1]

I guess if my 8yr daughter had cancer, I would live with the risk (that was there for who knows how long. "including two water pumps that didn't have emergency backup power" - since day one????).

 

I'm sure its now a top priority.

Hydro,

Be careful. You are trying to bring pragmatism and maybe even common sense into a political arena. Travel at your own risk!

[dryfly]

We will never know because there is not enough information on which to base a rational assessment. Almost certainly there was an elevated risk, but facts are now mired in bureaucratic and political wrangling. She needs to testify so she looks good because she's going to sue the gov's sorry ass for tossing her.

 

The CBC item said "there was a one in 1,000 chance of an accident occurring" is meaningless as it stands. It merely seems to be a sensational statement. Was there a heightened risk? Almost certainly. When one failsafe system goes down, then the system is less secure. How much less? We can't tell.

 

I scanned the article and did watch some of Keen's testimony while on the treadmill the other day. Nowhere can I find a reference to time. Highlander, wrote. "...a 1:1000 annual probability of failure, " If you saw that somewhere please post it. There is no reference to a time period that I can see. The item said, "the safety risk of resuming the Chalk River, Ont., reactor was 1,000 times higher than accepted international standards." One wonders how that is assessed and what that statement really means.

 

Without some reference (time would be good..or some other standard) we have no information on which to base a risk probability and the "one in 1,000 chance" is empty.

 

Ms. Keen may be (have been) a scientist, but she was also a high-level bureaucrat and my experience with these folks is that science no longer matters. They are de facto politicians too and all spin doctors.

 

It would be nice to see an independent appraisal done that is free of political interference.

 

Maybe the reactor was running on Windows 98.

 

Footnote: Just for fun ... here is Ms. Keen's bio ...

========================================================================

LINDA J. KEEN, President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)

 

Linda J. Keen is the President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). She was appointed a full-time Commissioner on November 1, 2000. She assumed duties as President and CEO of the CNSC on January 1, 2001. The CNSC regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment and to respect Canada’s international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, with 3500 licensees, covering all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and, uses from mining to power reactors to cancer clinics.

 

As President of the Commission, Ms. Keen presides over a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal that is responsible for making licensing decisions in an impartial manner and where the public is invited to participate. As CEO of the staff organization, Ms. Keen has charted a course for the CNSC to become one of the best nuclear regulators in the world by being recognized for its regulatory effectiveness and efficiency, its transparency and openness and for being a preferred career choice that attracts the best and the brightest within the nuclear field.

 

Ms. Keen is the elected President of the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA) for 2003 which represents eight of the largest countries in the world with regulated nuclear installations. She is a member of Women In Science and Engineering (WISE) and a member of the advisory committee for the Government of Canada Workplace Charitable Campaign (GCWCC).

 

Prior to her Governor in Council appointment as President and CEO of the CNSC, Ms. Keen has had over twenty years of experience in senior management positions within the federal and provincial public service, and the private sector. She has been responsible for program and policy development in the science, technology and resource sectors, as well as for employment programs. Ms. Keen also has extensive experience in trade policy and international marketing development.

A native Albertan, she holds a Bachelor of Science (Chemistry) and a Masters of Science (Food and Nutrition Sciences) from the University of Alberta.

[Highlander]

I scanned the article and did watch some of Keen's testimony while on the treadmill the other day. Nowhere can I find a reference to time. Highlander, wrote. "...a 1:1000 annual probability of failure, " If you saw that somewhere please post it. There is no reference to a time period that I can see. The item said, "the safety risk of resuming the Chalk River, Ont., reactor was 1,000 times higher than accepted international standards." One wonders how that is assessed and what that statement really means.

 

 

http://www.ccnr.org/CANDU_Safety.html

 

About a 1/4 of the way down the article. A 1:1,000,000 annual probability of failure is the standard.

[hydropsyche]

The politicians should be fired, not the bureaucrat. Fu@*ing Idiots!!!!!

 

We might have already. This might not have happen in the last year. It might have happened under the Liberals.

 

The current government had to decide whether to keep it shutdown until its fixed or to fire it back up and run it under the previous governments acceptable level of risk until its fixed.

 

Of course, I'm assuming these shortcomings have been there for awhile and were only recently discovered. It would be nice if the CBC article included that detail.

 

To get the full story, we need to know when it got to this, how it got to this and who is responsible for allowing it to get to this.

[DonAndersen]

The failure of the reactor coolant pumps would mean a melt down of the core. If the backup pumps were not operable, the melt down would continue. The containment building would hopefully do it's job.

 

It's not unusual to find safety systems in contravention of new accepted standard thereby requiring retrofits to comply. What is unacceptable is the lack of backup power to the coolant pumps in the original design..

 

Two uglies happened here:

1] The backup power situation wasn't detected earlier

2] politicians over-rode safety issues

 

catch ya'

 

Don

[dryfly]

I agree with Don (and probably everyone), that something was apparently amiss and needed attention. But I'll stick to my initial statement, "We will never know because there is not enough information on which to base a rational assessment."

 

Thanks for the reference Highlander.. I see the "1 in 1,000,000." But also see "1 in 1,000,000,000 ", and 100 times higher, ten times more, ten times less, 1,10,000, and the words, "theoretical probability," "postulate" and finally "1 in 20,000 per reactor per year (it has been suggested, moreover, that this figure could be out by a factor of "5 either way")".

 

Point being? We don't know and can't know how probabilities were compromised. At best guess Ms. Keen's "1000 times" is pure speculation. Something was probably amiss and cause for concern.

 

Rickr said, "There is absolutely no way that she knows if the chance of accident is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 1,000,000 on something as complex as a nuclear power plant."

 

Cheers!

 

Clive

[hydropsyche]

Two uglies happened here:

1] The backup power situation wasn't detected earlier

2] politicians over-rode safety issues

 

3] That this facility produces "two-thirds of the world's medical radioisotopes".

 

Why are all the eggs in this one large basket and again, who's fault is that?

 

The government had a tough call to make, thats all I'm saying. Without the isotopes, people *will* die. Do what they consider the right thing or do the political thing?

[DonAndersen]

Hydropsyche,

 

The "right" thing would be to never operate a piece of equipment whose safety standards are compromised. The "right" thing would have fixed it before it became an issue. The "right" thing would have been to fund the retrofits.

 

Don

[reevesr1]

Hydropsyche,

 

The "right" thing would be to never operate a piece of equipment whose safety standards are compromised. The "right" thing would have fixed it before it became an issue. The "right" thing would have been to fund the retrofits.

 

Don

Don,

Granted on your second and third points, but now what? The plant does not have emergency backup power (which implies to me 3 modes of power, normal, backup, and emergency backup) to some pumps. You said coolant pumps, but did the article say that specifically? Are they primary coolant pumps? Backups? Does the plant have any natural circulation in the event of pump failure? What is the normal power level of the plant? Can it be operated at a lower power level to make enough necessary isotopes while a plan is put together to shutdown and install backup power? If it is operated at a lower level, can decay heat be controlled in the event of a shutdown and loss of pump power (decay heat is the issue if there is a power failure. The plant will be shutdown and fission halted, but many fission fragments decay at a level necessitating cooling for several days, sometimes weeks after shutdown, depending on past power history)? If not, how long before decay heat causes temperature to rise to a level necessitating cooling?If power has not been restored, is there an emergency fill system capable of controlling heat? (this would be the end of the reactor, but no radiation would be released. It is typically a last ditch safety feature) What is the chance of any of this happening?

 

How do you balance that vs. the need for the isotopes? What if people can't get medicine and it increases their chance of dying, which is possible.

 

I could ask a thousand more questions. My point is of course safety standards will be compromised from time to time. Its called an exemption. If you feel an exemption is warranted, you put mitigation plans in place to do your best to maintain the intent of the safety standard. It is reviewed and accepted or rejected.

 

There is no right and wrong here. There are many, many inputs to the decision and a group of people who are mostly trying to do the right thing. I'm glad I don't have to make this decision.

 

Also add to that anytime anyone says nuclear everyone freaks the #$%^ out.

[hydropsyche]

The "right" thing would be to never operate a piece of equipment whose safety standards are compromised.

 

It would great if we could live in a world that is so black and white that we could stick to such abolutes but we don't.

 

I suspect the outcome of this poll is more based on a persons like or dislike of the current government then knowledge of all the considerations weighted against various risk assesments. I have no idea what those considerations/risks are, and I am no fan of the PC's, but I think the easy, more policitally asstute route would have been to keep it shut down. If so, why didn't they? I hope we all get the real scoop on this some day.

[Busey]

Her job was to oversee the safety of Canadians. She is qualified to make decisions based on nuclear safety. The plant was running at 1000X the acceptable risk. She shut down the plant and did the right thing. As far as I know Gary Lunn doesn't have a PhD in nuclear physics-this was a political move-and is not qualified to make these types of decisions. Harper's my way or the highway approach.

[hydropsyche]

She is qualified to make decisions based on nuclear safety.

 

Really?

 

"A native Albertan, she holds a Bachelor of Science (Chemistry) and a Masters of Science (Food and Nutrition Sciences) from the University of Alberta"

[Busey]

More qualified than Gary:

 

"A certified journeyman carpenter, Minister Lunn has designed and built numerous homes"- taken from his ministerial bio

[hydropsyche]

 

Just goes to show the "authorities" (those authorized to make critical decsions) don't run the show.

 

You say this was a political move (as opposed to one based on necessity). I'm interersted on how you think the PC's benifited politically by firing up an unsafe reactor.

[Busey]

I believe there was some partisan politics going on (I think she was a liberal appointtee-not chosen by the conservatives obviously). You're right, I don't believe the PCs benefit from this at all-but I feel the decision was a political one (the wrong one in my mind)-they chose to restart an unsafe reactor in order to provide isotopes.

[Harps]

One quick comment from me...

She did the right thing in shutting it down (probably backed by the nuclear scientists on her staff). Absolutely, no issue. She was doing her job looking out for the safety. Where the product ends is not her concern... that's where the politics comes in. If the gov't felt it neccessary to over-ride her decision and start medical production again... fine, that's the governments job... balance what we need, want, can't handle, etc. a society based value... in this case the risk of an accident vs a medical shortage.

Firing her for doing HER job was wrong.

[reevesr1]

One quick comment from me...

She did the right thing in shutting it down (probably backed by the nuclear scientists on her staff). Absolutely, no issue. She was doing her job looking out for the safety. Where the product ends is not her concern... that's where the politics comes in. If the gov't felt it neccessary to over-ride her decision and start medical production again... fine, that's the governments job... balance what we need, want, can't handle, etc. a society based value... in this case the risk of an accident vs a medical shortage.

Firing her for doing HER job was wrong.

Harps,

Excellent post.

 

So a couple of points:

The Nuclear scientists on her staff would have a bit of a vested interest in a tad of ass covering. Which is more than understandable.

 

Also, I've worked with lots 'o scientists. I find they are no better assessors of risk than anyone else. In fact, we all pretty much suck at risk assessment. Several factors get in our way:

If we don't understand it, we think it is more dangerous.

The emotional impact of the bad event. To many, dying in a plane crash is much worse than dying instantly in a car crash. But in both cases, you die. This makes us give more weight to some events over others, even though the final outcome is the same.

We don't have the capacity to truly understand the difference between say 1 in 1000 and 1 in 1,000,0000. We may understand intellectually, but not emotionally. In both cases, emotionally they are "highly unlikely". But it's funny how either may be acceptable risk if you agree with and/or understand the issue and how neither are acceptable if you don't (just a blanket statement. I am not talking about anyone here)

 

Edit:

Quick clarification:

Paul said that she was probably backed up by Nuclear Scientists in her decision to shut down. I hope she was backed up by statisticians and/or reliability experts. Because when you are talking about "what is the risk" I want those professionals figuring it out. Not the scientists.