HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut’s nuclear power plant shut one of two units on Sunday because seawater used to cool down the plant is too warm.

Unit 2 of Millstone Power Station has occasionally shut for maintenance or other issues, but in its 37-year history it has never gone down due to excessively warm water, spokesman Ken Holt said on Monday.

Water from Long Island Sound is used to cool key components of the plant and is discharged back into the sound. The water cannot be warmer than 75 degrees and following the hottest July on record has been averaging 1.7 degrees above the limit, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said.

The federal agency issued an “emergency license amendment” last week, allowing Millstone, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources Inc., to use an average temperature of several readings.

“It wasn’t enough to prevent us from shutting down,” Holt said.

In addition to the extreme heat last month, the mild winter didn’t help because it kept Long Island Sound water unusually mild, Holt said.

Robert Wilson, a professor at Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, said readings show temperatures in central Long Island Sound are nearly 80 degrees, much higher than the more typical 74 degrees.

He blamed weather patterns, beginning with the mild winter and little wind that allows heat to hang around.

“If you start from warm winters, then have sustained persistent surface heating without wind stirring you get very high temperatures,” Wilson said.

Millstone provides half of all power used in Connecticut and 12 percent in New England. Its two units produce 2,100 megawatts of electricity, which is reduced by 40 percent with Unit 2 down, Holt said.

Richmond, Va.-based Dominion, which operates Millstone, does not have an estimate of when the unit will restart, he said.

Marcia Blomberg, a spokeswoman for regional grid operator ISO-New England, said the loss of electricity will not be a major problem. The Holyoke, Mass.-based agency generally operates with a margin of reserve and plans for the possibility of lost resources, she said.

“Generators are big machines,” she said. “It happens frequently that resources are unable to start up or have to power down.”

Dave Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ nuclear safety project, said he believes the partial Millstone shutdown is the first involving a nuclear plant pulling water from an open body of water. A few nuclear plants that draw water from inland sources have powered down due to excessively warm water, he said.

Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama, for example, reduced power for 50 days in the summer of 2010 and fewer than 10 days last year, said Ray Golden, spokesman for the Tennessee Valley Authority, which operates the plant.

No power reductions were needed this year because the plant cools the water, he said.

Lochbaum said the Union of Concerned Scientists believes climate change is the reason why rivers, lakes and Long Island Sound are hotter.

“It is evidence of global warming with problems both obvious and subtle,” he said.

But Krista Lopykinski, a spokeswoman for Exelon Corp., which operates six nuclear plants in Illinois, said seeking state authorization to operate at an unchanged or higher level in response to elevated lake and river temperatures is “pretty common.”

“It happens every summer,” she said.

Still, Exelon asked for federal approval — the first time in 12 years — to continue operating when water in its cooling pond at an Illinois nuclear plant topped 100 degrees last month.

Join the Conversation

11 Comments

  1. Global warming wiped out lobsters in Long Island Sound – now it’s shutting down power plants.

    Who knew?

  2. Ironic isn’t it. 

    Nuclear plants are one of the solutions to global warming.  We need more nuclear and hydro powered plants on line,  and less of the fossil fueled plants , that emit large quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses

    1. Beware the unintended consequences to “solutions!”

      Let’s talk a little economics here, since anything to do with safety seems to be so low on our radar….

      Our state has a decommissioned plant, Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset, with an array of 64 “dry cask canisters” that hold the spent nuclear fuel rods and other radioactive materials.

      This article states  (  http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/03/16/politics/lepage-administration-still-eyeing-nuclear-despite-japan-crisis/  ):

      “…ratepayers pick up the estimated $6 million to $8 million annual tab to store and monitor the radioactive fuel…”  from the Wiscasset plant.  Since 1996, that is an average of $7 million x 15 years = $105 million.  And it produced NO electricity for us in those 15 years, just cost us money.

      Well, since there is no other option for storing this poison, and it needs to be kept secure for the next 25,000 years… let’s do the arithmetic…that is $175,000,000,000, not counting for inflation.  $175 Billion just in storage costs.

      That is just one plant, that produced electricity from 1972 to 1996, a real short 24 years…

      How many of those plants are there? 104 working ones in the US, a good percentage of which are near earthquake zones, BTW.

      I have always said, since the days of the Three Mile Island debacle, if the true costs of nuclear energy electricity production were factored in to what a utility charged for that electricity, it would not be “too cheap to meter,” but too expensive to even produce.Factor in the true costs of the insurance policies a utility company SHOULD be required to carry to recompense victims after a major accident, and not policies artificially capped by federal legislation–you would not split one atom…Factor in the true costs of just the security services at a storage site for the waste products of nuclear electricity production, for thousands of years…Factor in the design, land, building, and maintenance of such a storage facility–none yet exists–and the true costs would bankrupt several nations…every nuclear plant in this country is storing its wastes onsite, lacking anyplace to send it. Imagine storing your own garbage output in the kitchen for the next number of years…If it takes a recession/depression to stop the building of these poison plants, then hurray!That is capitalism at work, and not corporate socialism.True costs, true costs.Do the research:http://www.culturechange.org/n_power.htmhttp://www.nirs.org/http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-10_NuclearNonsensehttp://www.nukefree.org/

      1. That is only because Yucca Mountain was shut down due to politics and the NIMBY’s. Safe long term storage is possible.

        Same as Hydro Power, we are tearing out dams, due to politics and voodoo science instead of making them more efficient and productive

  3. 75 degree temperature is not really an issue.  US nuclear power submarines routinely operate in waters that temperatures exceed 80+ degree (although the colder the coolant water the more efficient the plant runs).  This is just a case of the NRC and the nuclear power industry being overly cautious-as they should be.  While cooling incoming seawater would not solve the problem economically, the use of faster pumps to increase coolant flow rate might be a better solution in the future.  I am sure any PE mechanical engineer could determine what the flow rate would have to be for water temperatures that exceed 75 degrees.

    1.  It wouldn’t just mean the pumps. It would also require modifications to the piping as well.

  4. “Water from Long Island Sound is used to cool key components of the plant and is discharged back into the sound. ”

    are they saying that they discharge irradiated water back into long island sound? wtf.

    1. no.  The sea water used for cooling is not irradiated.    Look up “light water reactor” on wikipedia.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *