"An Old Nuclear Problem Creeps Back"
The American nuclear industry, primed to begin new construction projects for the first time in 30 years, is about as eager for an operating problem at an old reactor as the oil industry was for a well blowout on the eve of opening the Atlantic coast to oil drilling.
Nonetheless, a nuclear reactor where a hidden leak caused near-catastrophic corrosion in 2002 has experienced a second bout of the same problem.
In 2002, the plant, Davis-Besse, in Oak Harbor, Ohio, developed leaks in parts on the vessel head, allowing cooling water from inside the vessel, at 2,200 pounds per square inch of pressure, to leak out.
(snip)
The plant was shut for 14 months. First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, which owns it, eventually brought in a replacement head of similar design from a reactor in Midland, Mich., that had been abandoned during construction.
The company assumed it had solved the problem. But recently the new vessel head showed the same leakage pattern. Once again, the parts prone to leaking are nozzles through which the control rods for the reactor pass. When the rods are inserted, they choke off the flow of neutrons that sustains the reaction; when they are withdrawn, the reactor starts up. But the nozzles are prone to a problem called “stress corrosion cracking,’’ leading to the leaks.
It is not clear why Davis-Besse’s problem is more serious than other plants have had, although it surfaced in 2002 that First Energy had won approval to delay inspections that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wanted. (When the problem became clear, those approvals set off a crisis of confidence for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)
Another problem may be the metal used in the original nozzles — the same metal used in the nozzles on the Midland reactor. While the vessel head from Midland “didn’t have any hours on it,’’ said Todd Schneider, a spokesman for Davis-Besse, it is of an older design.
(snip)
So by 'good to go', they mean the following.
1) Run at "2 to 3 degrees" lower operating temperature.
2) Instead of refueling and inspecting every 24 months, they will refuel and inspect every 24 months minus 100 days. Cutting off 100 days out of a 2 year cycle. Hey, maybe the vessel head will have more than 1/4" of steel remaining after 24 months minus 100 days, than it did after 24 months.
3) Oh, and they are still using the original nozzle design and material. New nozzles won't be ready to install until 2014.
Not defending the gulf catastrophe by any stretch of the imagination. Just thought it appropriate to put the nuclear industry's spin in context.
I await in anticipation being told how ignorant I am for pointing this out. :) Of course, that would draw more attention to the dis-ingenuousness of the OP, so... :shrug: