Published: August 26th, 2011 at 4:50 pm ET
|
Hurricane Irene could darken cities from the Carolinas to New England, Electric Light & Power, August 26, 2011:
[...] Because forecasts have not predicted hurricane-force winds in the area, Progress Energy said that its Brunswick nuclear plant along the North Carolina coastline will continue to operate throughout the storm — although the NRC has sent extra staff to the station. [...]
Published: August 26th, 2011 at 4:50 pm ET
|
sending...
Makes sense…close the liquor stores, but leave the nuclear plants running wide open so if something does go wrong the reactor core will be be 1,000 times harder to cool down.
Report Comment
The Weather Channel is reporting that nuclear plants along the coast are being secured, whatever that means.
Report Comment
Why do they tempt fate? Evidently, nuclear engineering programs don’t teach anything about prudence.
Report Comment
Well millstone cost something like 50,000 bucks a day to run on offsite power … so maybe that’s why?
Report Comment
oops, i was way off, silly me
“Millstone saved about two weeks of downtime for each reactor refueling—during which Northeast Utilities had to pay $500,000 a day for replacement power.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galatis
Report Comment
How much is Tepco going to have to pay for not having shut down before the tsunami they knew was coming?
I read that the costs of the accident will exceed all of the profits TEPCO has made from the plant in the course of its lifetime of service.
It’s a matter of perspective.
Report Comment
Even Obama said it could be a “hurricane of historic proportions” . . . . Of course, he certainly wouldn’t want a nuke plant to lose money unnecessarily (that might cut into what they’ll have to contribute to his reelection campaign).
Report Comment
First Lady Michelle Obama spended more then 10 million Dollar of public funds, money that belongs belongs to the government and is used for the good of the public money for her holiday. With that you could run the plant for 200 day’s..
Report Comment
(For 200 day’s on offsite power)
Report Comment
(holidays) (from 2009 till now)
Report Comment
if they had powered down yesterday, they’d be at 5% residual, so, that any crisis can be handled by the low pressure systems, and they’d already have the EDG’s tested out.
I hope they have tested the EDG’s and have jumpers available to rejumper the units, incase storm surge comes in.
Report Comment
We should petition Congress to pass a law REQUIRING nuclear plants to temporarily shut down in the event of extremely violent storms/hurricanes like this one.
Report Comment
Every day people becoming informed is the only way. No one I know is even aware of the kinds of things this industry is doing. And Fukushima, all be it a terrible tragedy, is an opportunity to make people aware. I think Rham Emanuel put it best “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” As much as I disagree with this man, he makes a good point.
Running around yelling about the dangers of nuclear are not going to get peoples attention. They have been programmed to look at that and consider you a “____ wing NUT JOB” depending on the issue.
Make people aware with facts. Educate them on the incidents in your community that have put them in danger. NOBODY in Connecticut is aware that Millstone had 5 hydrogen explosions in the 70′s that spread radiation across our state. When I educate people on it, they are quite surprised.
“Extensive mechanical damage to
equipment and structures, however, in addition to uncontrolled release of
radioactive material, have resulted from five explosions, including the
Millstone event, where hydrogen gas accumulated outside of the offgas
system. ”
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/bulletins/1978/bl78003.html
Locate these stories from you area, and educate your friends and community.
Report Comment
“No one I know is even aware of the kinds of things this industry is doing.”
–That is my experience also–even after Fukushima they don’t want to hear about it and dismiss talk of its dangers as “fear-mongering.” The way Bill Buckley once characterized the mission of the National Review actually captures the situation of nuclear opponent’s today:
“It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”
Still, I would have thought after Fukushima (and Chernobyl and TMI and MIllstone and Simi Valley, etc.), they’d realize that History itself is telling them to stop–and so is Nature itself, with Japan’s earthquake/tsunami followed by our earthquake/hurricane, and the floods in Nebraska and the wild fires in New Mexico and now Idaho.
Report Comment
Dear Iam: It’s interesting to hear how people in various parts of the U.S., if you are in the U.S. (forgive me if I’m assuming), are or are not willing to listen, think about, research or act on nuclear power disasters, since they immediately effect everyone. Here in California, Oakland/Berkeley in the “East Bay” across from San Francisco, I find very many willing to listen and there are many very intelligent and curious-about-everything kinds of people here. Some of the problems here, compared to the “don’t wanna listen” folks, is that the learning curve for nuclear power crises is so steep. This is largely due to the foxes owning the information dissemination machinery of the MSM among other causes. There are so many details and reference points necessary to get a handle on what the problems are that only those of us, so far, who constantly can and do take the time to educate ourselves about this understand. I hope (big procrastinator and easily distracted here in real world) to create locally some sort of pleasant but attention getting fliers with information on the cataclysm in Fukushima. I’ll keep it to one page. There’s too much to include; but if I could provide an email, then send links, or links provided on the page, maybe this would encourage people to rally to at least learn more so that an appropriately strident response would have ANY potential of occurring. Others over the past several months have mentioned similar things. I’m hoping to hear more ideas as I feel like I don’t really have any that give me an “aha” moment. It’s not the best and is not an original idea; but I’m hoping to inspire discussion on overcoming this collective fossilization of the majority of, especially, the U.S. public to this most serious and immediate of crises.
Report Comment
You have probably had more success reaching people because you are on the West Coast, which was/is the first to get hit with all of FUK’s fallout. I live in the Midwest, but my family lives in eastern Pennsylvania. I am particularly surprised because PA’s Limerick nuclear power station just applied for re-licensure this summer–despite being the third most vulnerable in the country to earthquake damage–and I have not been able to find any active movement to mount opposition to that re-licensure.
You mentioned “the foxes owning the information dissemination machinery of the MSM”–I think they are a big part of the problem. Even though people sometimes make derisive comments about the media, they are still, perhaps unconsciously, taking their cues about what is “important” (or worth worrying about) from the media–and the media has stopped talking about FUK, leaving many with the impression that the crisis has passed.
Report Comment
I agree wholeheartedly Pallas89juno,
Even small bits of information like:
BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 DPR-71/DPR-62 BWR
can make a huge difference in understanding what we are dealing with when something happens.
Places like these:
http://www.reirs.com/effluent/
http://www.reirs.com/effluent/EffluentAdams.asp
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/
http://www.nci.org/index.htm
http://rsicc.ornl.gov/Default.aspx
are great ways to get up to speed on the in and outs of the Nuclear Industry’s comings and goings. These places will seem overwhelming at first, but after a bit you will discover information that will allow you to respond in kind to questions from the people you are trying to make aware and the shill that berates you for being uneducated on nuclear power. If you want to truly make a difference, the data is out there right in front of you and available. You just have to take the time to digest it. And if you say, “I don’t have time for that” then you have no business coming to a site with such an important subject as making nuclear power accountable for their actions. You will only get into endless arguments with the shills and each other about the validity of your data and what you said.
So if you care, get out your shovel and start helping dig the hole that we all want to push nuclear power into.
Just my humble opinion.
Report Comment
They show how robust these plants are – ability to operate in all kinds of weather.
Report Comment
When millstone got caught violating the regulations on allowing fuel to cool down prior to moving it to the spent fuel pool, the report said how much it cost to run on offsite power and that was their reasoning for rushing the refueling process. It was a ton of money. These people are concerned with safety, but its was down on the list from the all mighty green back.
Report Comment
Does anyone know what constitutes the safety issue of “Near Misses”? By a plane? A terrorist RPG? A tornado? Turning on/off a critical switch at the last second?:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/reactor-map/embedded-flash-map.html
Report Comment
Anyone know if this statement is true?
Industry watchdogs concerned about power supplies – to reactors, not just homes
By Corbin Hiar
5 hours, 28 minutes ago
…..
Nuclear reactors require constant cooling, even when plants are not generating electricity, as will be the case for nuclear plants along the East Coast during Hurricane Irene. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires reactors to go into shutdown mode at least two hours before the onset of hurricane-force winds, typically between 70 and 75 miles per hour.
…..
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/08/26/6008/risk-nuclear-plants-hurricanes-path-may-not-be-what-you-think/?utm_source=iwatchnews&utm_medium=site-features&utm_campaign=most-active
Report Comment
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION August 2010
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH Division 1
DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE
Contact: S. Sancaktar
(301) 251-7572
This regulatory guide is being issued in draft form to involve the public in the early stages of the development of a regulatory
position in this area. It has not received final staff review or approval and does not represent an official NRC final staff position.
Public comments are being solicited on this draft guide (including any implementation schedule) and its associated regulatory
analysis or value/impact statement. Comments should be accompanied by appropriate supporting data. Written comments may
be submitted to the Rulemaking and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; submitted through the NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web page at http://www.nrc.gov; or faxed to
(301) 492-3446. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC’s Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD. Comments will be most helpful if received by October 21, 2010.
Electronic copies of this draft regulatory guide are available through the NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web page (see above); the
NRC’s public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/; and the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under Accession No. ML100480890. The
regulatory analysis may be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML102310249.
DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-1247
(New Regulatory Guide)
DESIGN-BASIS HURRICANE AND HURRICANE MISSILES
FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1004/ML100480890.pdf
Report Comment
EGM-09-008, Enforcement Guidance Memorandum
The purpose of this enforcement guidance memorandum (EGM) is to provide guidance for the
disposition of violations of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for work
hour controls during conditions before and immediately after the declaration of an emergency
for a hurricane, when licensees sequester plant staff on site to ensure personnel are available
for relief of duties.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0923/ML092380177.pdf
Report Comment
Progress NC nuclear plant may operate through Irene
HOUSTON | Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:09pm EDT
NRC regulations generally call for nuclear reactors to be completely shut down several hours ahead of the arrival of hurricane-force winds of 75 mph or greater.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/26/storm-irene-brunswick-idUSN1E77P13020110826
Report Comment