Nuke power plant safety shuffle.

[TruthSeeker56]

If "taichiliberal" knew ANYTHING about U.S. nuclear power plants, he would know that there are two types of nuclear power plants..........BWRs (Boiling Water Reactors) and PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors).

The Indian Point Nuclear Power facility has TWO Pressurized Water Reactors. Pressurized Water Reactors DO NOT PRODUCE RADIOACTIVE STEAM. Did you read that, "taichiliberal"?

Your bogus "600,000 gallons of radioactive steam was released into the atmosphere" claim holds no water (pun intended).

I'm still scratching my head over how steam is measured in "gallons". That's a good one, too.

I warned you to "stay in your own lane", taichiliberal. Now you've gone and embarrassed yourself by feverishly digging up bogus links from bogus sources in a feeble attempt to advance your Chicken Little "the sky is falling" anti-nuke nonsense.

If you REALLY want to know the FACTS about U.S. nuclear power plants, I'm here to provide you with free tutoring, "chili".

 

[TruthSeeker56]

I'll give you some explanations about some of the "concerns" you mentioned:

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.

The key words here are "monitoring well" and "underground vault". Monitoring wells and underground vaults are used to obtain and analyze water and entrained gas samples PRIOR to any release into the environment. By the way, tritium is a GAS, and tritium in the pico-curie range (pCi) is not anywhere close to a "dangerous" level. I also have serious doubts about the "federal limits" you stated (not calling YOU a "liar", but questioning the source of your information).

Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.

Water leaking INTO the containment building is much better than water leaking OUT of the containment building. I can guarantee you that a fine was paid AND the problem was fixed.

In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.

The amount of SFP water leaking into the Hudson River would have been very small if no fine was incurred. I am also wondering why you seem to use the phrase "back to business as usual" as if it is some sort of "sinister" thing.

In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an “automatic shutdown” of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn’t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.

The problem with this whole "scenario" involves one "small" detail: Indian Point's steam IS NOT RADIOACTIVE. Pressurized Water Reactors (like Indian Point has) produce non-radioactive steam. Also, steam is not measured in "gallons". This whole statement makes no sense at all.

In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.

The "main transformer" is located OUTDOORS, and has nothing to do with the nuclear reactor. Transformers overheat and malfunction all the time. I can guarantee you that some time during your life, you have lost electricity to your home because of a transformer malfunction (usually an overload situation).

One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation. Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often. “The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we’re not even close.” A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.'' An Entergy spokesman said “This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.'' The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.

You have NO IDEA how nuclear power plants are designed. A terrorist could NEVER find his way around a U.S. nuclear power plant, unless he was an "insider" and had direct access to critical safety systems, which is highly unlikely because of the extensive background checks that ALL U.S. nuclear power plant employees undergo. There are also hundreds of cameras located all over the place, and there are physical barriers located in high-security areas. I will agree with the fact that the security personnel at the majority of U.S. nuke power plant facilities are woefully undertrained and underpaid. Many are basically glorified rent-a-cops.

I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.

U.S. nuclear power plants are VERY safe, not just "pretty safe". You have NO IDEA how over-regulated our nuke power plants are. You have NO IDEA how highly trained and extremely competent nuclear power plant operators and chemists and health physicists and engineering and maintenance personnel are. U.S. nuclear power plants employ the best of the best. You have NO IDEA how tough the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is when it comes to training and safety and maintenance and all other aspects of nuclear power plant operations. "Overkill" doesn't even begin to describe how strict the NRC people are.

If people are looking for cheezy, poorly operated, technologically inferior, and inherently unsafe nuclear power plants, go to Russia or one of the other former Soviet countries, or go to Japan for that matter.

The United States has the BEST nuclear power plants in the world. Be PROUD of that.

 

[IndependntLogic]

If "taichiliberal" knew ANYTHING about U.S. nuclear power plants, he would know that there are two types of nuclear power plants..........BWRs (Boiling Water Reactors) and PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors).

The Indian Point Nuclear Power facility has TWO Pressurized Water Reactors. Pressurized Water Reactors DO NOT PRODUCE RADIOACTIVE STEAM. Did you read that, "taichiliberal"?

Your bogus "600,000 gallons of radioactive steam was released into the atmosphere" claim holds no water (pun intended).

I'm still scratching my head over how steam is measured in "gallons". That's a good one, too.

I warned you to "stay in your own lane", taichiliberal. Now you've gone and embarrassed yourself by feverishly digging up bogus links from bogus sources in a feeble attempt to advance your Chicken Little "the sky is falling" anti-nuke nonsense.

If you REALLY want to know the FACTS about U.S. nuclear power plants, I'm here to provide you with free tutoring, "chili".

Actually, it was me who said it. From what I gather (and I don't claim to be an expert), it was measured by the number of gallons of water that created the steam.

As far as bogus link, bogus sources, bogus info etc... you could just Google it but here are a few links.

Nuclear steam leak intentional: Response to Indian Point plant shutdown

On-Hudson.com : 600,000 Gallons Of Boiling RadioActive Water Turned To Steam Released Over Lower Hudson Valley Intentionally

Indian Point Energy Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TruthSeeker56]

From what I could gather from "independent" sources, the "radioactive steam" was extremely low level and posed no harm or danger to the environment. There apparently was a small leak in a steam generator that caused the steam to become very slightly radioactive, which in itself is an impossibility since the steam generators are designed for "in-leakage" if a leak occurs, due to the difference in pressure between the "hot" and the "clean" water.

The problem with reading about nuke power plant "situations" is that there is a lot of anti-nuke bias out there, moreso since the Japan nuke power plant debacle. Just because a person reads something, no matter what the "source" is, doesn't make it true. Since the anti-nukes know little, if anything, about U.S. nuclear power plants, they will sling bullshit at the wall knowing that some of it will stick.

It's tough to sift through the B.S. and arrive at the facts, and the truth, about U.S. nuclear power plants, just like it is with anything else. I am qualified, and more than willing, to be able to serve as the anti-nuke "bullshit meter". I have no "allegiance" to any utility, and no reason to be biased. 18 years of nuke power plant experience and 9 years of retirement from the industry should "qualify" me to serve as a "neutral" voice on this topic.

As for New York nuclear power plants, there used to be a shiny new nuclear power plant on Long Island called "Shoreham". It was completed back in the 1980s, but it never produced one kilowatt of electricity because the various towns on Long Island, and of course New York City, refused to approve the Emergency Plan for Shoreham. Shoreham became a political football for a number of years, and ultimately the whole situation bankrupted the utility who built and operated the plant (LILCO- Long Island Lighting Company) and this perfectly safe 1,000+ MWe nuclear power plant was shut down forever. I bet the residents wish they had those 1,000+ MWe of electricity now.

The laundry list is a long one, of nuclear power plants that were shut down before their time, nuclear power plants that were in various stages of construction that were never finished, etc., etc., etc.

 

[IndependntLogic]

From what I could gather from "independent" sources, the "radioactive steam" was extremely low level and posed no harm or danger to the environment. There apparently was a small leak in a steam generator that caused the steam to become very slightly radioactive, which in itself is an impossibility since the steam generators are designed for "in-leakage" if a leak occurs, due to the difference in pressure between the "hot" and the "clean" water.

The problem with reading about nuke power plant "situations" is that there is a lot of anti-nuke bias out there, moreso since the Japan nuke power plant debacle. Just because a person reads something, no matter what the "source" is, doesn't make it true. Since the anti-nukes know little, if anything, about U.S. nuclear power plants, they will sling bullshit at the wall knowing that some of it will stick.

It's tough to sift through the B.S. and arrive at the facts, and the truth, about U.S. nuclear power plants, just like it is with anything else. I am qualified, and more than willing, to be able to serve as the anti-nuke "bullshit meter". I have no "allegiance" to any utility, and no reason to be biased. 18 years of nuke power plant experience and 9 years of retirement from the industry should "qualify" me to serve as a "neutral" voice on this topic.

As for New York nuclear power plants, there used to be a shiny new nuclear power plant on Long Island called "Shoreham". It was completed back in the 1980s, but it never produced one kilowatt of electricity because the various towns on Long Island, and of course New York City, refused to approve the Emergency Plan for Shoreham. Shoreham became a political football for a number of years, and ultimately the whole situation bankrupted the utility who built and operated the plant (LILCO- Long Island Lighting Company) and this perfectly safe 1,000+ MWe nuclear power plant was shut down forever. I bet the residents wish they had those 1,000+ MWe of electricity now.

The laundry list is a long one, of nuclear power plants that were shut down before their time, nuclear power plants that were in various stages of construction that were never finished, etc., etc., etc.

Well I tend to believe that nothing is ever as good or as bad as people say. So when people say "Oh Nuclear power with be the death of us all, tomorrow!" I think about the fact that I lived down the coast from San Onofre and never heard of any problems. On the other side, when people say "There are no valid reasons for concern, when it comes to the safety or security of nuclear plants! None whatsoever!" I am just as skeptical.

So let's put that bullsh*t-o-meter of yours to the test. What would you say are the two or three main areas of concern, when it comes to nuclear plants?

 

[taichiliberal]

From what I could gather from "independent" sources, the "radioactive steam" was extremely low level and posed no harm or danger to the environment. There apparently was a small leak in a steam generator that caused the steam to become very slightly radioactive, which in itself is an impossibility since the steam generators are designed for "in-leakage" if a leak occurs, due to the difference in pressure between the "hot" and the "clean" water.

The problem with reading about nuke power plant "situations" is that there is a lot of anti-nuke bias out there, moreso since the Japan nuke power plant debacle. Just because a person reads something, no matter what the "source" is, doesn't make it true. Since the anti-nukes know little, if anything, about U.S. nuclear power plants, they will sling bullshit at the wall knowing that some of it will stick.

It's tough to sift through the B.S. and arrive at the facts, and the truth, about U.S. nuclear power plants, just like it is with anything else. I am qualified, and more than willing, to be able to serve as the anti-nuke "bullshit meter". I have no "allegiance" to any utility, and no reason to be biased. 18 years of nuke power plant experience and 9 years of retirement from the industry should "qualify" me to serve as a "neutral" voice on this topic.

As for New York nuclear power plants, there used to be a shiny new nuclear power plant on Long Island called "Shoreham". It was completed back in the 1980s, but it never produced one kilowatt of electricity because the various towns on Long Island, and of course New York City, refused to approve the Emergency Plan for Shoreham. Shoreham became a political football for a number of years, and ultimately the whole situation bankrupted the utility who built and operated the plant (LILCO- Long Island Lighting Company) and this perfectly safe 1,000+ MWe nuclear power plant was shut down forever. I bet the residents wish they had those 1,000+ MWe of electricity now.

The laundry list is a long one, of nuclear power plants that were shut down before their time, nuclear power plants that were in various stages of construction that were never finished, etc., etc., etc.[/QUOTE


Once again, this bogus "truthseeker" spews his opinion, supposition and conjecture as "fact", and either leaves out or is ignorant of information that contradicts his assertions, insinuations, allegations and opinions.

Case in point: the "truthseeker" leaves out a LOT of information regarding Shoreham on Long Island. For starters, THE CITIZENS OF LONG ISLAND HAD NO DECISION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHOREHAM. That was decided by the now defunct LILCO and it's shareholders. Secondly, after 3 Mile Island, the citizenry put Shoreham's construction and policies under a microscope......which revealed such things as faulty coolant pipes that were being installed, and NO VIABLE evacuation plan in case of emergency.
Then Gov. Cuomo (Sr.) reviewed the evacuation plan and said quite plainly that the Shoreham folk were out of their minds if they thought he would be responsible for trying to evacuate people from a situation when there's a traffic jam every day just for the commute to Manhattan, and were local roads do NOT handle mass movement when that siren went off (remember, it's called Long ISLAND.....nothing in that plan about naval rescue). What killed Shoreham was due diligence analysis, NOT politics.

As the chronlogy of the posts show, the "truthseeker" has once again failed to find the whole truth.

 

[martybegan]

I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.


The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an “automatic shutdown” of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn’t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
“The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we’re not even close.”
A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
An Entergy spokesman said “This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.


I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.

The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.

Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.

Actions have consequences.

Who said anything about shutting down Indian Point? Does merely pointing out some verifiable facts that contradict the "Everything is absolutely perfect" viewpoint, automatically mean I must have the diametrically opposed view?

I see this dichotomous mentality all the time. If you think guns are fine but don't approve of carrying RPG's to kindergarten, someone says you're "one of those anti-gun whackjobs!".
If you state that unions have a purpose but frequently go way beyond the functions of providing a safe workplace and competitive wage, you're called a "Corporate NeoCon" or whatever.

So to suggest that we might want to take a look at both safety and security at our facilities - especially in light of terrorism, flaws in security, the release of 600,000 gallons of radioactive steams etc....
Automatically means I want to shut down Indian Point? Or is it that you don't have a strong counter to these simple measures but also don't want to concede that there are valid concerns out there?

The current governmor of NY has made not renewing Indian Point's Operating liscence a priority of his.

 

[martybegan]

From what I could gather from "independent" sources, the "radioactive steam" was extremely low level and posed no harm or danger to the environment. There apparently was a small leak in a steam generator that caused the steam to become very slightly radioactive, which in itself is an impossibility since the steam generators are designed for "in-leakage" if a leak occurs, due to the difference in pressure between the "hot" and the "clean" water.

The problem with reading about nuke power plant "situations" is that there is a lot of anti-nuke bias out there, moreso since the Japan nuke power plant debacle. Just because a person reads something, no matter what the "source" is, doesn't make it true. Since the anti-nukes know little, if anything, about U.S. nuclear power plants, they will sling bullshit at the wall knowing that some of it will stick.

It's tough to sift through the B.S. and arrive at the facts, and the truth, about U.S. nuclear power plants, just like it is with anything else. I am qualified, and more than willing, to be able to serve as the anti-nuke "bullshit meter". I have no "allegiance" to any utility, and no reason to be biased. 18 years of nuke power plant experience and 9 years of retirement from the industry should "qualify" me to serve as a "neutral" voice on this topic.

As for New York nuclear power plants, there used to be a shiny new nuclear power plant on Long Island called "Shoreham". It was completed back in the 1980s, but it never produced one kilowatt of electricity because the various towns on Long Island, and of course New York City, refused to approve the Emergency Plan for Shoreham. Shoreham became a political football for a number of years, and ultimately the whole situation bankrupted the utility who built and operated the plant (LILCO- Long Island Lighting Company) and this perfectly safe 1,000+ MWe nuclear power plant was shut down forever. I bet the residents wish they had those 1,000+ MWe of electricity now.

The laundry list is a long one, of nuclear power plants that were shut down before their time, nuclear power plants that were in various stages of construction that were never finished, etc., etc., etc.[/QUOTE


Once again, this bogus "truthseeker" spews his opinion, supposition and conjecture as "fact", and either leaves out or is ignorant of information that contradicts his assertions, insinuations, allegations and opinions.

Case in point: the "truthseeker" leaves out a LOT of information regarding Shoreham on Long Island. For starters, THE CITIZENS OF LONG ISLAND HAD NO DECISION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHOREHAM. That was decided by the now defunct LILCO and it's shareholders. Secondly, after 3 Mile Island, the citizenry put Shoreham's construction and policies under a microscope......which revealed such things as faulty coolant pipes that were being installed, and NO VIABLE evacuation plan in case of emergency.
Then Gov. Cuomo (Sr.) reviewed the evacuation plan and said quite plainly that the Shoreham folk were out of their minds if they thought he would be responsible for trying to evacuate people from a situation when there's a traffic jam every day just for the commute to Manhattan, and were local roads do NOT handle mass movement when that siren went off (remember, it's called Long ISLAND.....nothing in that plan about naval rescue). What killed Shoreham was due diligence analysis, NOT politics.

As the chronlogy of the posts show, the "truthseeker" has once again failed to find the whole truth.

Everything in your list except for the evacuation plan was something that could have been rectified by design review and regulation. The evacuation plan was the killer, not the other issues.

The real crime of Shoram is that it was basically built before the plug was pulled, costing Long Islanders billions in increased power costs, and to this day long Island's power issues have still not been addressed.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Well I tend to believe that nothing is ever as good or as bad as people say. So when people say "Oh Nuclear power with be the death of us all, tomorrow!" I think about the fact that I lived down the coast from San Onofre and never heard of any problems. On the other side, when people say "There are no valid reasons for concern, when it comes to the safety or security of nuclear plants! None whatsoever!" I am just as skeptical.

So let's put that bullsh*t-o-meter of yours to the test. What would you say are the two or three main areas of concern, when it comes to nuclear plants?

I appreciate your "cautious" approach when it come to your "decision-making" process, Indy.

Your question is a valid one, and my answers involve NOTHING from a safety standpoint.
Here are my answers:

1. U.S. nuclear power plants are showing their age. Ground has not been broken for a new U.S. nuclear power plant since the 1970s. This country needs to build MORE nuke power plants before the old ones start going off-line.

2. Storage of spent fuel bundles has been an ongoing problem for many years, because the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada, which should have been "open for business" many years ago, has become a perpetual political football. Currently, U.S. nuke power plant facilities store their spent fuel on-site.

3, The anti-nuke pukes need to get a life, admit that wind turbines and solar power are NOT the answer to the continuing and growing power needs of the United States, and embrace the FACT that building many more nuclear power plants is the best answer.

As for "taichiliberal", I am not going to acknowledge his anti-nuke rhetoric. "Martybegan" did a fine job of responding to him.

 

[BoycottTheday]

1. U.S. nuclear power plants are showing their age. Ground has not been broken for a new U.S. nuclear power plant since the 1970s. This country needs to build MORE nuke power plants before the old ones start going off-line.

I like the argument about old nukes, imagine if we had only 1970's vintage cars and we wanted to keep them running, hey who wants a vega to fix!?!



Anyways check these puppies out vroom! Turn up the A/c!

Mini Reactors Show Promise for Clean Nuclear Power's Future - Popular Mechanics

 

[TruthSeeker56]

1. U.S. nuclear power plants are showing their age. Ground has not been broken for a new U.S. nuclear power plant since the 1970s. This country needs to build MORE nuke power plants before the old ones start going off-line.

I like the argument about old nukes, imagine if we had only 1970's vintage cars and we wanted to keep them running, hey who wants a vega to fix!?!



Anyways check these puppies out vroom! Turn up the A/c!

Mini Reactors Show Promise for Clean Nuclear Power's Future - Popular Mechanics

Interesting article, even though it was written in December of 2009. I haven't heard anything recently about this "mini-reactor" design, so I wonder if it has moved forward or if the NRC just laughed it off.

There is at least one statement that is not true in this article. The author characterized all current U.S. nuclear power plants as being in the 1,000-1,700 MW range, when in fact there are many nuke plants in the 500 MW range.

 

[martybegan]

You "see" what you want to see, because for folk like you the mindset is that so long as there is no immediate death or destruction, all is well. Unfortunately, anyone with a high school GED reading capablity can follow the trail and see otherwise. Here's a starter kit for you...you can pick out the national related incidences history of nuke power plant lies - Google Search

First off, you want documentation of lying and covering up......obviously you DID NOT read the article, which covers an aspect of that. So you're being willfully ignorant on the subject as well as disingenuous, because the NRA is suppose to REGULATE....it's not set up to eliminate, as you falsely claim. The article shows how that is NOT being done.

And PUH-LEEZE spare me the nuke mantra about 3 Mile Island. The first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true

Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later

Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

So cut the crap, read the article and then debate the issue with me honestly.

One, you link is gone, Two, Huffpo is as good of a source for issues of nuclear regulation as Cosmo is.

Three, ive read most of the crap on TMI being worse than people say it was, Conspiracy theory at its finest.

Also, even if some regluations have been relaxed, we were shown how well the oversight of these plants works by the stuff that happened up in Missouri. Worst flooding in 200 years and the plant staff reacted perfectly. No problems, No releases, no real damage.

1) the links work fine from my end....so either it's your computer, a temporary glitch or you didn't bother reading the material linked.

2) Repeating your bluff and BS to cover the FACT that YOU DIDN'T READ THE MATERIAL PRESENTED in ANY of my links does NOT jusitfy or prove any of your opinion, supposition or conjecture.

3) That Missouri dodged a bullet by the grace of God (waters receding at the opportune time regarding the nuke plant) DOES NOT ERASE all the information that YOU REFUSE TO READ. Again, your willful ignorance is no excuse or proof that your opinion is justified.

NRC Regulators Scrutinize Nebraska Nuclear Plant - WSJ.com

Link doesnt work. try relinking it.

and i stand by my huffo = useless knee jerk reporting.

Missouri didnt dodge a bullet, the safety protocols put in place worked.

 

[martybegan]

I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.


The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an “automatic shutdown” of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn’t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
“The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we’re not even close.”
A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
An Entergy spokesman said “This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.


I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.

The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.

Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.

Actions have consequences.

No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences. But it's not impossible: YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:


Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?

Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN


This report presents the work of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center.

Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs

This is a discussion board, people will have opinions. if you can't handle that go to a jeopardy website, they deal in facts only.

 

[martybegan]

I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.


The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an “automatic shutdown” of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn’t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
“The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we’re not even close.”
A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
An Entergy spokesman said “This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.


I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.

The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.

Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.

Actions have consequences.

No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences. But it's not impossible: YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:


Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?

Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN


This report presents the work of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center.

Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs

My concern with the replacement report is that it concentrates too much on using demand reduction to meet the missing 2,000 MW. It is wishful thinking to assume you can change the power consumption of people by that much. Also the report is from 2006, so the energy use estimates are probably off.

As one example, I found that in thier PV home installations they basically ignore the maintenance needed to keep the cells working at peak efficency. In addition the problem with home based PV's vs. a centralized plant is that people in homes typically use thier highest power items (air conditoners) at night, when they would have to be pulling off the grid, therefore that power use must be included in the peak loading for the region.

 

[BoycottTheday]

There is at least one statement that is not true in this article. The author characterized all current U.S. nuclear power plants as being in the 1,000-1,700 MW range, when in fact there are many nuke plants in the 500 MW range.

i have to be honest, i just get the mag for the pictures

The factual stuff is way over my head.

 

[Intense]

U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation
LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety – and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._lnk2|216523

We are in agreement here. I never have had much love or trust in the NRC.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant. There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis. It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life. I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.

 

[Intense]

Nuclear-powered cars! airplanes! Fridges and freezers! In the heady days of the early 1950s — at the dawn of the civilian nuclear power age and President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program — nuclear optimists imagined a world powered by tiny nuclear reactors. Today, in an era of climate change and energy insecurity, the nuclear industry is dusting off some of those old dreams. That includes the nuclear battery.

Designed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory spin-off Hyperion Power Generation Inc., the nuclear battery — so called because it is cheap, small and easily transportable — is about the size of a refrigerator, compared with a 50-ft.-tall traditional reactor. It produces 25 megawatts of electricity — approximately a fortieth the output of a large atomic power-plant reactor. While not quite compact enough for cars, the battery, known as the Hyperion Power Module, has been designed to power subdivisions or towns with fewer than 20,000 homes, as well as military bases, mining operations, desalination plants and even commercial ships, including cruise liners.

Read more: Nuclear Batteries - TIME

 

[Intense]

The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant. There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis. It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life. I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.

That's a good thing.

 

[martybegan]

U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation
LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety – and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._lnk2|216523

We are in agreement here. I never have had much love or trust in the NRC.

Kind of harsh for an agency that has been doing its job probably better than any other government agency.

Yes, there are always accidents, releases, misreporting etc. You can't eliminate that as hard as you try, but considering 1 bad accident that WAS CONTAINED in 40+ years of nuclear power, they seem to be doing thier job.

I hope you understand that any reduction in a safety margin is probably researched and backup up 10 ways from sunday before it is allowed. Consdiering they make them public, I assume they know any change will be scruitinzed.