I bet you it is in the purchase specification of the transformer...getting
a cheaper grade of transformer.
We got a national security issue with this. Most of the USA’s
transformers are made outside the USA.
What country did this failed transformer come from?
You got some corporate financial pinhead with no idea how a nuclear plant works dictating the quality of the transformer through price and specification.
WSJ: New York State Calls for Tougher Inspections at Indian Point
By Joseph De AvilaUpdated May 20, 2015 2:55 p.m. ET
New York state is renewing its call for tougher oversight of electrical transformers at the Indian Point Energy Center after the third failure in eight years of one of the power-transfer devices at the nuclear plant.
A transformer for Indian Point’s unit 3 exploded and caught fire May 9 in the nonnuclear section of the power plant 30 miles north of New York City. No one was hurt and no other equipment damaged.
The state’s call for more intensive inspections comes as Entergy Corp.ETR-0.05%, the owner of Indian Point, seeks to renew its operating licenses for units 2 and 3 with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The state has opposed the renewal.
During relicensing proceedings, the state has argued that Indian Point’s transformers should be subject to what is known as an aging-management program as a condition of the facility being re-licensed. Such programs apply to so-called passive components, such as those with no moving parts, and are inspected periodically for degradation due to aging.
The NRC, however, classifies transformers as so-called active components, subject to a different set of inspection rules.
A regulatory tribunal agreed in 2013 with New York state’s position. But that ruling was overturned in March by the NRC.
“As the history of explosions and fires at Indian Point make clear, transformers play an important role in nuclear plant safety,” said New York state’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office has represented the state in Indian Point’s re-licensing process. “The time has come to require that transformers be closely and frequently monitored as a part of the facility’s aging management program as I have raised in the re-licensing proceeding.”
The NRC is scheduled to hold a public meeting Wednesday in Tarrytown, N.Y. on its assessment of Indian Point’s safety performance in 2014. The assessment, issued in March, found that Indian Point “met all cornerstone objectives” and wouldn't be subject to additional inspections above and beyond normal reviews.
Jerry Nappi, a spokesman for Entergy, said both of unit 3’s transformers passed extensive electrical inspections in March. Transformers at Indian Point get these intensive inspections every two years. Aspects of the devices also are inspected daily.
“Everything that can be done using best industry guidance to monitor transformers was done,” he said. “Three transformers in less than 10 years is unusual. We need to get to the bottom of that.”
NRC officials say that main transformers at nuclear power plants are subject to ongoing monitoring, inspection and testing programs that serve the same purpose as an aging management program. “There is no evidence at this point to support the idea that placing the transformer under an aging management program would have resulted in a different outcome,” said Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman. “All of that said, our inspections of the transformer failure event are continuing.”
Mr. Sheehan said the commission hadn’t determined whether the May 9 transformer failure would warrant additional oversight at Indian Point’s unit 3 reactor.
The NRC also announced Tuesday it had begun a special inspection at Indian Point to look into the presence of water in an electrical-supply room that had equipment that provided power to safety systems at the plant. Entergy officials said that water from the sprinkler system flows into this electrical-supply room into a floor drain by design. After the fire, the water didn't drain as quickly as expected, they said.
Some 16,000 gallons of transformer oil called dielectric fluid is still unaccounted for after the fire, according to Entergy. An unknown amount of that oil spilled into the nearby Hudson River. Dielectric fluid is a light mineral oil used as an electrical insulator and coolant for transformers.
The transformer that failed earlier this month replaced another transformer that malfunctioned and caught fire in 2007. Another transformer failed in 2010, which had been in operation for four years.
“I find it very difficult to understand with the high number of failures that they have experienced at this site, that Entergy hasn’t taken the political bull by the horns and set up a monitoring procedure, which no one can argue with,” said Robert Degeneff, an engineer and consultant in transformer performance.Mr. Degeneff, who testified for the New York Attorney General’s office during relicensing proceedings, said the company also should develop monitoring procedures with an independent third party.
Over the past 40 years, there have been at least 85 transformer fires at U.S. nuclear power-plant facilities, according to records from Dave Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Mr. Lochbaum said nuclear plants generally don’t inspect their transformers monthly basis because transformers don’t tend to degrade that quickly.
“I think [Entergy] will look at what they were inspecting and how they were inspecting rather than frequency,” Mr. Lochbaum said. “When they lose that transformer they also stop making revenue. They have a huge incentive to get a reliable transformer.”
No comments:
Post a Comment