Sen.Blutarsky 0 #1 February 20, 2006 Our N-plants may be showing signs of their age … Emergency declared at nuclear power plant The Associated Press Published February 20, 2006, 10:33 AM CST An emergency was declared at a nuclear power plant about 55 miles southwest of Chicago early today when operators could not confirm the position of three control rods after the reactor shut down, officials said. There were no injuries, no radiological releases and no equipment damage at the LaSalle Generating Station in Brookfield Township in LaSalle County, according to Exelon Nuclear officials. The plant, which is owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corp., was scheduled to shut down early today for a refueling outage. According to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, the reactor did not shut down properly. Company officials said instruments showed three of the 185 control rods failed to insert fully into the reactor core and operators declared a ``site area emergency'' at 12:28 a.m. That is the second-highest of the four emergency categories in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's emergency response system. The emergency was over about four hours later, Exelon Nuclear officials said. Operators reset the control rod position indication system and then found only one rod was out of position, company officials said. Exelon Nuclear officials are trying to determine why the control rod indicators originally showed the rods weren't inserted properly. The NRC said it also will investigate the shutdown and the IEMA is monitoring the station. Preliminary information showed a malfunction of the plant's turbine control system caused the automatic reactor shutdown, according to the NRC. Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060220nuclear,1,2917200.story?coll=chi-news-hed Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #2 February 20, 2006 I dont really understand the technicalities of it all. But the words nuclear, emergancy and large city in the same story cause me alarm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #3 February 20, 2006 QuoteI dont really understand the technicalities of it all. But the words nuclear, emergancy and large city in the same story cause me alarm This clearly is the position of most people. Especially the first sentence. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #4 February 20, 2006 Quote Our N-plants may be showing signs of their age … Emergency declared at nuclear power plant The Associated Press Published February 20, 2006, 10:33 AM CST An emergency was declared at a nuclear power plant about 55 miles southwest of Chicago early today when operators could not confirm the position of three control rods after the reactor shut down, officials said. There were no injuries, no radiological releases and no equipment damage at the LaSalle Generating Station in Brookfield Township in LaSalle County, according to Exelon Nuclear officials. The plant, which is owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corp., was scheduled to shut down early today for a refueling outage. According to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, the reactor did not shut down properly. Company officials said instruments showed three of the 185 control rods failed to insert fully into the reactor core and operators declared a ``site area emergency'' at 12:28 a.m. That is the second-highest of the four emergency categories in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's emergency response system. The emergency was over about four hours later, Exelon Nuclear officials said. Operators reset the control rod position indication system and then found only one rod was out of position, company officials said. Exelon Nuclear officials are trying to determine why the control rod indicators originally showed the rods weren't inserted properly. The NRC said it also will investigate the shutdown and the IEMA is monitoring the station. Preliminary information showed a malfunction of the plant's turbine control system caused the automatic reactor shutdown, according to the NRC. Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060220nuclear,1,2917200.story?coll=chi-news-hed Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! sounds like either lack of maintenance or incompetance... if not either is still sucks. especially since the prevailing winds are from the WSW 225-235 Degrees. And very bad news for those in the direct path... SDC,Ottawa, and every town on it's way to chicago and beyond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #5 February 20, 2006 I'd be interested in knowing whether the rod was an APSR. If it was, then this is really a non-issue; the APSR's don't have much to do with plant shutdown. (Although the turbine trip and failure of the indication system should surely get fixed.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #6 February 20, 2006 Eh, wasnt there no radiological release? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #7 February 20, 2006 I certainly hope not...maybe someone should strap a geiger on the misser (Missy's Cessna) and go airborne clad in an NBC suit and respirator to take readings...kind of late now due to the fact the winds were kind of strong today in Illinois Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #8 February 20, 2006 >kind of late now , , , You need a containment failure for anything of that sort to occur. Sending up someone in an NBC suit is like scrambling fighters to shoot down an airliner that declared an emergency due to engine failure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #9 February 20, 2006 Quotekind of late now due to the fact the winds were kind of strong today in Illinois EXACTLY. I would have volunteered to go up there and take readings if the winds weren't so strong ... Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #10 February 20, 2006 the mere fact we here in the land of Illinoisistan, have more nuclear facilities than any other place of the same geographical size, anywhere in the world. I think we should see better standards instead of having such problems...we in fact, have some that are shut down, because of failures and we paid muti millions for them at tax payer expenses. I am in favor of nuclear generated power, but also frown upon problems that occur even though we are paying through the nose financially. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #11 February 20, 2006 I agree bill....that horse was already out of the barn Note I don't think there was a contaiment failure. I certainly hope there wasn't Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #12 February 20, 2006 > I think we should see better standards instead of having such problems... Keep in mind that activist groups have been lobbying for years for standards that do not keep nuclear power plants safe, but rather to win their political wars. As an example, they lobbied (successfully) to get maintenance problems officially declared 'emergencies' in order to get more attention paid to them. I agree that problems with nuclear power are bad, but if this is indeed an APSR issue, then it is about as serious as an elevator that detects a problem in its hoist motor, shuts down and stops between floors. It did what it was designed to do and no one was hurt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #13 February 20, 2006 Exactly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #14 February 20, 2006 Quotethe mere fact we here in the land of Illinoisistan, have more nuclear facilities than any other place of the same geographical size, anywhere in the world. Chicago is bracketed from the other side of the lake by two other N-plants, DC Cook near Bridgman Michigan and Palisades near South Haven Michigan. My chief concern is the age of our country's civilian reactors. Their designs date back to before the 70's. It's my view that we need a national commitment to design new and safer commercial power reactors as part of a comprehensive national energy plan. Given the Administration hales from the oil patch, I'm not optimistic that a real initiative will be launched any time soon. Perhaps I'll take this issue to my fellow Bilderbergers ... Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #15 February 20, 2006 Coal as a source of energy for the USA has claimed more lives so far this year than 50 years of nuclear power. And then there are all the dead from the wars over oil...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #16 February 20, 2006 Yes and our govenor, blojobabitch is too busy trying to ban LEGALLY owned firearms and other non- issues to even take on the real concerns his constituents have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #17 February 20, 2006 > It's my view that we need a national commitment to design new and safer > commercial power reactors as part of a comprehensive national energy plan. I agree there. I don't even think we need radically new designs; a design like the GE AP600 is proven and just as safe as the PBMR designs (IMO.) (The AP600 is just an improvement on a PWR like San Onofre; it can shut down passively, and the containment is much simpler.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #18 February 20, 2006 QuoteIt did what it was designed to do and no one was hurt. There was the Fermi breeder reactor in 1966 outside Detroit.. WAY too much was made of that when 2 of 100 rods had some issues and overheated... ONe of these days though... some of these older reactors WILL have a problem. They shut down the Trojan plant on the Columbia River because of the plethora of cracks in the stainless tubeing. It was deemed cost prohibitive to replace them and the plant went away because of that. A better design is needed .. and the design needs to be implemented by companies willing to use the VERY best materials... with NO shoddy workmanship allowed. That type of plant I can support. but too many of these things have been built with people cutting corners to MAKE A BUCK.. not to provide the very best our technology can promise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #19 February 20, 2006 > and the design needs to be implemented by companies willing to use >the VERY best materials... with NO shoddy workmanship allowed. I think a reactor that requires such methods is doomed to failure. A reactor built using standard commercial practices should be safe to operate and should fail in a predictable and safe manner. Everything fails, from airliners to parachutes. The reason we can skydive safely is that we have reserves, and the reason flying is safe enough is that there's enough redundancy in the design that we can lose a system (an engine, a nav system, pressurization) and still land safely. Reactors have to be (and are, fortunately) designed to similar standards. Take Three Mile Island. Two consecutive failures (polisher causing a turbine trip, stuck PORV) followed by three incredibly dumb decisions by operators (including turning off two separate systems that would have shut the plant down safely) - and no one was injured, and the plant was shut down. The airline equivalent might be a 747 that loses two engines, has the crew erroneously shut down the other two, and still lands safely. (Needless to say, the headlines would be very different in these two cases.) Given all that, I think newer designs that have more passive shutdown features are the way to go. They can still fail, of course. But the nice thing about the AP600 (and designs of that type) is that if you just pull the power on every pump, valve and sensor in the reactor it still just shuts down. Compare that to current reactors that require power to safely shut down. BTW I am not arguing that we should build them in a shoddy manner. Again, compare them to skydiving gear. No one should pack a reserve in a shoddy manner. But if you do, they still open - which is one reason skydiving is relatively safe. In an ideal world, you have all perfect riggers and perfect reserves. In the real world, some riggers are sloppy, but the design of the reserve/container is good enough that this is _usually_ not a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 February 20, 2006 Quote>I think a reactor that requires such methods is doomed to failure. A reactor built using standard commercial practices should be safe to operate and should fail in a predictable and safe manner. no kidding - a beaming light of reason and I'm so glad you're back to highlight the, apparently, not as obvious as I thought, stuff on that type of politcal speak this attitude of 1 - only the BEST (subjective term, what's the best) 2 - "we thought of EVERYTHING" (nuts, everything is a lot of stuff) 3 - just a little MORE safer (totally subjective) is load of feel good crap from people that just think others have to be perfect while they stumble through life there's no substitute for good design and reasonable safety factors and direct control this "I'm ok as long as everything is perfect" mentality is a bandaid attitude from people that don't understand design. that, and executives that forgot what design means. It's a political statement, nothing constructive in it in terms of building and operating and maintaining energy production facilities. If you had a pressure vessel with a safety factor of 10, this type of person would violently lobby for 12, just because 12 is bigger than 10 - regardless of what a FOS of 10 meant in terms of the real world failure scenarios..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #21 February 20, 2006 >If you had a pressure vessel with a safety factor of 10, this type of person would violently lobby for 12 . . . And if he got 12 he would lobby for 14, until he got a factor no one would support. At which point he would declare that nuclear reactors simply cannot be built safely. I can just see the headlines now. "Officials reject safer reactor design" "PG+E goes with weaker design despite lobbyist efforts" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #22 February 20, 2006 EXACTLY ""Welcome back"" I can't wait to bug Bob and Mary (and Mike Oolman is from our region too) and hear about the record. Once this 4way bug gets out of my system, I'd like to start poking around big ways. But that's really for the rich guys..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #23 February 20, 2006 QuoteI'd be interested in knowing whether the rod was an APSR. If it was, then this is really a non-issue; the APSR's don't have much to do with plant shutdown. (Although the turbine trip and failure of the indication system should surely get fixed.) Exactly what I was thinking, but if the continum transfunctioner was failing in the closed position due to a kinuder valve sticking open, it is possible the APSR rods were functioning normally and GDAQ rods were the ones malfunctioning. This could be extremely dangerous for at least a 60 mile radius. A failure of a GDAQ rod would cause the ionization of the triptouranium top cells causing a complete nuclear meltdown. Good thing it was just an indication error. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #24 February 20, 2006 Wise guy! Sorry if I got acronym-y. APSR's are axial power shaping rods, and are not needed to shut down the reactor. Thus a problem inserting them is annoying but not a safety issue. From a Smithsonian article: ------------- The APSRs are, in effect, a special sort of control rod. Although they play no role in starting up and shutting down the reactor as control rods do, the APSRs contain, like control rods, not fuel, but neutron-absorbing elements. Those elements are so chosen and so distributed along the 12-foot (3.5 m) length of an APSR that power generation along the axis of the reactor’s core—i.e., from top to bottom—can be made more uniform by appropriate degrees of insertion of the APSR assemblies. (Because the concentration of neutrons is greater at the center of the core, fuel in the center “burns” more rapidly and generates more heat. Hence the need for a corrective.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #25 February 20, 2006 QuoteWise guy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
