Nuke power plant safety shuffle.

[martybegan]

Instead of just acknowledging the FACT that it was SHEER LUCK that Mother Nature didn't decide to go a few feet more, nuke wonks and toadies just keep harping on ONE part of the story. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.

We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN. AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.

By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans. Grow the hell up and deal with it.

And for a more comical response:

 

[Intense]

Blah, blah, blah.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Anti-nuke waterheads are FUN, but also very annoying.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtzoUu7w-YM]‪Ray Stevens - The Streak‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Intense]

Nuclear plants depend on standby batteries and backup diesel generators. Most standby power systems would continue to function after a severe solar storm, but supplying the standby power systems with adequate fuel, when the main power grids are offline for years, could become a very critical problem.

If the spent fuel rod pools at the country's 104 nuclear power plants lose their connection to the power grid, the current regulations are not sufficient to guarantee those pools won't boil over, exposing the hot, zirconium-clad rods and sparking fires that would release deadly radiation.

A recent report by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory discloses that over the standard 40-year license term of nuclear power plants, solar flare activity provides a 33 percent chance of long-term power loss. This is a risk far greater than most other natural disasters, including major earthquakes and tsunamis.

In 1989, a solar storm affected the power grid in Quebec, Canada, leaving roughly six million people without electricity for many hours. A storm of similar magnitude today could cause up to $2 trillion in damage globally.

Massive Solar Storm Could Cause Catastrophic Nuclear Threat in US - International Business Times

 

[Intense]

ATHENS, Ala. — The Tennessee Valley Authority says it plans to correct a problem that left only 12 of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant's required 100 emergency sirens working after the April 27 tornadoes.

The power loss that left 88 sirens useless also caused problems at the nuclear plant.

Bill McCollum, the TVA's chief operating officer, says the authority is looking at installing emergency sirens with battery backup capability.

All three reactors shut down automatically April 27. A report TVA filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says water levels dropped in the Unit 1 reactor when the water boiled off faster than it was replaced. The cooling systems that control the temperature of the reactors stopped working for 47 minutes on April 28, 57 minutes on May 2 and 40 minutes on May 12.

___

TVA planning to correct problem that left most Browns Ferry sirens useless during tornadoes

 

[taichiliberal]

They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.

We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN. AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.

By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans. Grow the hell up and deal with it.

Please look at the two words you used. UPRECEDENTED and CONTINGENCY? How does one make up contingency plans? One goes on PRECEDENT. We don't require nuke plants to withstand a metor hit, although techincally there is a chance of just that. When figuring out the risk, you have to go with what is feasible to a given risk factor. A contingency plan is based on what you think can happen with a reasonable chance. And thier contigency plan covered flooding. And it was implemented, and it worked.

What good is "going on precedent" when there is an UNPRECEDENTED event, genius? You keep babbling bullshit in order to avoid the SIMPLE FACT that had the water just gone a few feet higher, the contingency plan would have been a piss in the wind, and there'd be a whold lot of contamination to deal with. BUT BY THE GRACE OF GOD, that didn't happen. Damned lucky, given the break in the berm wall.

But stubborn nuke toadies like you, Marty boy, will just keep parroting moot points, supposition and conjecture to try and gloss over a matter of fact and history. Let's watch Marty continue to do the nuke power plant safety shuffle, folks.

And even if the water kept rising, and the building was breached, at that point they had plenty of water around to use fo cooling, basically take gas powered trash pumps and use the river water. It might have ruined the reactor but it would have kept it cool.

Sure Marty...a flooded out spent rod pool and a "ruined reactor" would have been kept cool and everything would've been hunky dory.....and pigs fly daily over Ft. Calhoun.



Also even if the plant wasn't shut down due to maintenance, they would have shut it when they determined the river was going to flood. once shut down all you have to do is keep it cool. and guess what you had plenty of lying around. WATER.

Another fantastic scenario from nuke toadie Marty....why, if the plant is flooded, we have all that nice flood water to keep the nuke fuel cool! All is well.....save for having all that contaminated water all over the place, (Marty forgets about the spent rod pool), and damage to the plant systems which ain't water proofed.

But then, all one has to do is a little research to see how close Ft. Calhoun came to a serious calamity by NRC's own standards


Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant

By the Grace of God, Marty boy....and God doesn't give a damn about your belief in your contingency plans when it comes to nuke power plants....whether you accept that or not is of no consequence.

 

[taichiliberal]

They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.

We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN. AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.

By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans. Grow the hell up and deal with it.

And for a more comical response:

Ahhh, Marty boy shows the true depth of his intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty. Way to go, my little nuke power toadie!

 

[taichiliberal]

They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.

We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN. AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.

By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans. Grow the hell up and deal with it.

Given the depth of the water was a serious factor, so was the amount of time it just sat there.

You and I disagree on a lot of issues, but on this one we are in sync. Here's an appropo to what you've been posting here


Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant

 

[martybegan]

We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN. AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.

By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans. Grow the hell up and deal with it.

Please look at the two words you used. UPRECEDENTED and CONTINGENCY? How does one make up contingency plans? One goes on PRECEDENT. We don't require nuke plants to withstand a metor hit, although techincally there is a chance of just that. When figuring out the risk, you have to go with what is feasible to a given risk factor. A contingency plan is based on what you think can happen with a reasonable chance. And thier contigency plan covered flooding. And it was implemented, and it worked.

What good is "going on precedent" when there is an UNPRECEDENTED event, genius? You keep babbling bullshit in order to avoid the SIMPLE FACT that had the water just gone a few feet higher, the contingency plan would have been a piss in the wind, and there'd be a whold lot of contamination to deal with. BUT BY THE GRACE OF GOD, that didn't happen. Damned lucky, given the break in the berm wall.

But stubborn nuke toadies like you, Marty boy, will just keep parroting moot points, supposition and conjecture to try and gloss over a matter of fact and history. Let's watch Marty continue to do the nuke power plant safety shuffle, folks.

And even if the water kept rising, and the building was breached, at that point they had plenty of water around to use fo cooling, basically take gas powered trash pumps and use the river water. It might have ruined the reactor but it would have kept it cool.

Sure Marty...a flooded out spent rod pool and a "ruined reactor" would have been kept cool and everything would've been hunky dory.....and pigs fly daily over Ft. Calhoun.



Also even if the plant wasn't shut down due to maintenance, they would have shut it when they determined the river was going to flood. once shut down all you have to do is keep it cool. and guess what you had plenty of lying around. WATER.

Another fantastic scenario from nuke toadie Marty....why, if the plant is flooded, we have all that nice flood water to keep the nuke fuel cool! All is well.....save for having all that contaminated water all over the place, (Marty forgets about the spent rod pool), and damage to the plant systems which ain't water proofed.

But then, all one has to do is a little research to see how close Ft. Calhoun came to a serious calamity by NRC's own standards


Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant

By the Grace of God, Marty boy....and God doesn't give a damn about your belief in your contingency plans when it comes to nuke power plants....whether you accept that or not is of no consequence.

You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening.

My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured.

There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.

 

[martybegan]

We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN. AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.

By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans. Grow the hell up and deal with it.

And for a more comical response:

Ahhh, Marty boy shows the true depth of his intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty. Way to go, my little nuke power toadie!

I actually responded to your post in a more intellectual way. This response is more due to your name calling. Resorting to name calling and accusing someone you disagree with of being a shill is the height of being butthurt.

I GOT MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM!

 

[Intense]

We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN. AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.

By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans. Grow the hell up and deal with it.

Given the depth of the water was a serious factor, so was the amount of time it just sat there.

You and I disagree on a lot of issues, but on this one we are in sync. Here's an appropo to what you've been posting here


Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant

From your Link. Interesting find.

Dear Mr. Bannister:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you the final significance determination of the preliminary
Yellow finding identified in our previous communication dated July 15, 2010, which included the
subject inspection report. The inspection finding was assessed using the Significance
Determination Process and was preliminarily characterized as a Yellow finding with substantial
importance to safety that may result in additional NRC inspection and potentially other NRC
action. This Yellow finding involved the failure to maintain procedures for combating a
significant flood as required by Technical Specification 5.8.1.a, “Procedures.”
At your request, a regulatory conference was held on August 18, 2010, to further discuss your
views on this issue. During the regulatory conference, your staff described your assessment of
the significance of the finding, detailed corrective actions, and the root-cause analysis of the
finding. Additionally, you requested that the NRC reconsider its evaluation of the finding’s risk
significance based on six specific arguments. By letter dated September 23, 2010, you also
provided supplemental information, clarifying information provided during the conference.
We have reviewed your arguments and our evaluation of each is provided in Enclosure 2 of this
letter. After considering the information developed during the inspection, and the information
that you provided at the conference, the NRC has concluded that the finding is appropriately
characterized as Yellow, a finding with substantial importance to safety that will result in
additional NRC inspection and potentially other NRC action. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1028/ML102800342.pdf

 

[taichiliberal]

Please look at the two words you used. UPRECEDENTED and CONTINGENCY? How does one make up contingency plans? One goes on PRECEDENT. We don't require nuke plants to withstand a metor hit, although techincally there is a chance of just that. When figuring out the risk, you have to go with what is feasible to a given risk factor. A contingency plan is based on what you think can happen with a reasonable chance. And thier contigency plan covered flooding. And it was implemented, and it worked.

What good is "going on precedent" when there is an UNPRECEDENTED event, genius? You keep babbling bullshit in order to avoid the SIMPLE FACT that had the water just gone a few feet higher, the contingency plan would have been a piss in the wind, and there'd be a whold lot of contamination to deal with. BUT BY THE GRACE OF GOD, that didn't happen. Damned lucky, given the break in the berm wall.

But stubborn nuke toadies like you, Marty boy, will just keep parroting moot points, supposition and conjecture to try and gloss over a matter of fact and history. Let's watch Marty continue to do the nuke power plant safety shuffle, folks.

And even if the water kept rising, and the building was breached, at that point they had plenty of water around to use fo cooling, basically take gas powered trash pumps and use the river water. It might have ruined the reactor but it would have kept it cool.

Sure Marty...a flooded out spent rod pool and a "ruined reactor" would have been kept cool and everything would've been hunky dory.....and pigs fly daily over Ft. Calhoun.



Also even if the plant wasn't shut down due to maintenance, they would have shut it when they determined the river was going to flood. once shut down all you have to do is keep it cool. and guess what you had plenty of lying around. WATER.

Another fantastic scenario from nuke toadie Marty....why, if the plant is flooded, we have all that nice flood water to keep the nuke fuel cool! All is well.....save for having all that contaminated water all over the place, (Marty forgets about the spent rod pool), and damage to the plant systems which ain't water proofed.

But then, all one has to do is a little research to see how close Ft. Calhoun came to a serious calamity by NRC's own standards


Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant

By the Grace of God, Marty boy....and God doesn't give a damn about your belief in your contingency plans when it comes to nuke power plants....whether you accept that or not is of no consequence.

You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening.

I'm talking about WHAT HAPPENED, Marty boy....the berm, part of the safety systems, BUSTED! There was an UNPRECEDENTED flood....and the contingency plans THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LAUDED didn't include that unprecedented flood. But NOW that you realize that it was by sheer luck and the Grace of God that the uprecedented flood waters didn't go a few feet more, YOU are now trying to BS your way pass the FACT that I'm right and you're wrong on this point. Sorry Marty, but the chronology of the post exposes your intellectual dishonesty and piss poor attempt to dodge your failure.

My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured.

Actually, your problem is NOT acknowledging the failures and problems of the nuke industry....and then dodging and misrepresenting fact based critiques. This "incident" with this plant started with an UNPRECEDENTED flood endangering a nuke plant...a broken berm wall and everyone nervously watching whether the flood levels would continue to rise......so spare us all your hyperbole and exaggerations, Marty boy.

There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.

The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows. Carry on predictably, Marty boy.

 

[taichiliberal]

And for a more comical response:

Ahhh, Marty boy shows the true depth of his intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty. Way to go, my little nuke power toadie!

I actually responded to your post in a more intellectual way. This response is more due to your name calling. Resorting to name calling and accusing someone you disagree with of being a shill is the height of being butthurt.

I GOT MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM!


You're a liar, Marty....the chronology of the posts details WHO started name calling and displaying a nasty, condescending attitude...and that would be YOU and your like minded cronies. What's buring your ass is that I successfully proved you wrong using simple facts and the logic derived from those facts. Now frustrated at your defeat, you resort to silly and childish name calling and an attempt to change the topic to who insulted who first.

Again, the chronology of the posts shows the failure of your defense of the nuke industry PR regarding Ft. Calhoun. Grow the fuck up and deal with it, Marty boy.

 

[martybegan]

Another fantastic scenario from nuke toadie Marty....why, if the plant is flooded, we have all that nice flood water to keep the nuke fuel cool! All is well.....save for having all that contaminated water all over the place, (Marty forgets about the spent rod pool), and damage to the plant systems which ain't water proofed.

But then, all one has to do is a little research to see how close Ft. Calhoun came to a serious calamity by NRC's own standards


Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant

By the Grace of God, Marty boy....and God doesn't give a damn about your belief in your contingency plans when it comes to nuke power plants....whether you accept that or not is of no consequence.

You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening.

I'm talking about WHAT HAPPENED, Marty boy....the berm, part of the safety systems, BUSTED! There was an UNPRECEDENTED flood....and the contingency plans THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LAUDED didn't include that unprecedented flood. But NOW that you realize that it was by sheer luck and the Grace of God that the uprecedented flood waters didn't go a few feet more, YOU are now trying to BS your way pass the FACT that I'm right and you're wrong on this point. Sorry Marty, but the chronology of the post exposes your intellectual dishonesty and piss poor attempt to dodge your failure.

My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured.

Actually, your problem is NOT acknowledging the failures and problems of the nuke industry....and then dodging and misrepresenting fact based critiques. This "incident" with this plant started with an UNPRECEDENTED flood endangering a nuke plant...a broken berm wall and everyone nervously watching whether the flood levels would continue to rise......so spare us all your hyperbole and exaggerations, Marty boy.

There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.

The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows. Carry on predictably, Marty boy.

Why would a contigency plan include an unprecedented flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.

Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.

I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.

 

[martybegan]

Ahhh, Marty boy shows the true depth of his intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty. Way to go, my little nuke power toadie!

I actually responded to your post in a more intellectual way. This response is more due to your name calling. Resorting to name calling and accusing someone you disagree with of being a shill is the height of being butthurt.

I GOT MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM!


You're a liar, Marty....the chronology of the posts details WHO started name calling and displaying a nasty, condescending attitude...and that would be YOU and your like minded cronies. What's buring your ass is that I successfully proved you wrong using simple facts and the logic derived from those facts. Now frustrated at your defeat, you resort to silly and childish name calling and an attempt to change the topic to who insulted who first.

Again, the chronology of the posts shows the failure of your defense of the nuke industry PR regarding Ft. Calhoun. Grow the fuck up and deal with it, Marty boy.

The only namecalling I can find is that I called your source (huffpo) crap, and I told you your link didn't work. You are the one accusing anyone who disagree's with you a paid shill. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with the events at the plant, and you are being called on it. Again, if you can't deal with people who have opinions that differ from your own, either stop posting or go to some place like DU. You will be far happier.

The ONLY reason the events at these plants made the news was Fukishima. If Fukishima didn't happen the flooding at the two plants would have been a page 15 blurb in some local paper. Instead we have people making crap up about "how close we came to disaster"

YOU EARN A DERP!

 

[Intense]

You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening.

I'm talking about WHAT HAPPENED, Marty boy....the berm, part of the safety systems, BUSTED! There was an UNPRECEDENTED flood....and the contingency plans THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LAUDED didn't include that unprecedented flood. But NOW that you realize that it was by sheer luck and the Grace of God that the uprecedented flood waters didn't go a few feet more, YOU are now trying to BS your way pass the FACT that I'm right and you're wrong on this point. Sorry Marty, but the chronology of the post exposes your intellectual dishonesty and piss poor attempt to dodge your failure.

My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured.

Actually, your problem is NOT acknowledging the failures and problems of the nuke industry....and then dodging and misrepresenting fact based critiques. This "incident" with this plant started with an UNPRECEDENTED flood endangering a nuke plant...a broken berm wall and everyone nervously watching whether the flood levels would continue to rise......so spare us all your hyperbole and exaggerations, Marty boy.

There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.

The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows. Carry on predictably, Marty boy.

Why would a contigency plan include an unprecedented flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.

Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.

I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.

Why would a contigency plan include an unprecedented flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur,

I posted a link from the NRC showing inadequacies with the Plants Flood Control Capabilities. The plant had known issues and deficiencies, for which it was tagged. Yes modifications were recently made before the flood. Thank God for that, or we might have been singing a different tune. Still, Earthen Damns and Sand Bags should not be a primary defense against flooding, but last ditch. What exactly do you have against cement? How about better drainage pumps?

The question that concerns me is do you suck it up and make necessary safety improvements so that there is not a repeat performance, or do you fight every inch, tooth and nail, in the state of denial? Make the improvements.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows. Carry on predictably, Marty boy.

Why would a contigency plan include an unprecedented flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.

Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.

I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.

Why would a contigency plan include an unprecedented flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur,

I posted a link from the NRC showing inadequacies with the Plants Flood Control Capabilities. The plant had known issues and deficiencies, for which it was tagged. Yes modifications were recently made before the flood. Thank God for that, or we might have been singing a different tune. Still, Earthen Damns and Sand Bags should not be a primary defense against flooding, but last ditch. What exactly do you have against cement? How about better drainage pumps?

The question that concerns me is do you suck it up and make necessary safety improvements so that there is not a repeat performance, or do you fight every inch, tooth and nail, in the state of denial? Make the improvements.

Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option. Concrete levees are a better one, but economics states you only build them as high as you need to. every additonal foot adds to the base size required, and creates access issues as well.

The tagged deficiency appears to be a mid level one. If it were critical it would not allow response, you would basically just have to do it. We have similar audits and this would be a mid level issue for us as well, giving us up to 60 days to correct it.

When you build levees you typically build them for the 100 year flood. This was a 200 year flood. When that happens you have to take extra precautions. Also remember that even if the reactor was in full power mode they would have had to shut it off anyway due to even moderate flooding. So basically you would have had several days to cool it down before the flooding reached the levels we saw in the pictures.

Intense, your concerns are well thought out, and I agree you do have a right to be concerned. I work in Engineering, and we would all like to make everything 100% safe. however 100% safety isnt possible. You implement the best controls you can, and in the case of nuke reactors, go with a layered defense. Here the layered defense worked.
Even if some of the layers failed temporarily.


I

 

[Intense]

Why would a contigency plan include an unprecedented flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.

Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.

I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.

Why would a contigency plan include an unprecedented flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur,

I posted a link from the NRC showing inadequacies with the Plants Flood Control Capabilities. The plant had known issues and deficiencies, for which it was tagged. Yes modifications were recently made before the flood. Thank God for that, or we might have been singing a different tune. Still, Earthen Damns and Sand Bags should not be a primary defense against flooding, but last ditch. What exactly do you have against cement? How about better drainage pumps?

The question that concerns me is do you suck it up and make necessary safety improvements so that there is not a repeat performance, or do you fight every inch, tooth and nail, in the state of denial? Make the improvements.

Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option. Concrete levees are a better one, but economics states you only build them as high as you need to. every additonal foot adds to the base size required, and creates access issues as well.

The tagged deficiency appears to be a mid level one. If it were critical it would not allow response, you would basically just have to do it. We have similar audits and this would be a mid level issue for us as well, giving us up to 60 days to correct it.

When you build levees you typically build them for the 100 year flood. This was a 200 year flood. When that happens you have to take extra precautions. Also remember that even if the reactor was in full power mode they would have had to shut it off anyway due to even moderate flooding. So basically you would have had several days to cool it down before the flooding reached the levels we saw in the pictures.

Intense, your concerns are well thought out, and I agree you do have a right to be concerned. I work in Engineering, and we would all like to make everything 100% safe. however 100% safety isnt possible. You implement the best controls you can, and in the case of nuke reactors, go with a layered defense. Here the layered defense worked.
Even if some of the layers failed temporarily.


I

Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option.
One reason I mentioned the pumps was that the NRC Report stated that they were inadequate. Another was the length of time the water sat. Even utilizing Fire Engine Pumps to drain the standing water would have been an improvement.

In general it would be great to see improvement on our ability to repair Levy breaches around the country. Maybe they should all have railroad track across the top. In my mind I envision something that would incorporate railroad track, flat cars, and a mechanism of layered louvered locking steel plates, that would swing down, close when in position, and be filled with cement. Cool huh.

 

[martybegan]

Why would a contigency plan include an unprecedented flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur,

I posted a link from the NRC showing inadequacies with the Plants Flood Control Capabilities. The plant had known issues and deficiencies, for which it was tagged. Yes modifications were recently made before the flood. Thank God for that, or we might have been singing a different tune. Still, Earthen Damns and Sand Bags should not be a primary defense against flooding, but last ditch. What exactly do you have against cement? How about better drainage pumps?

The question that concerns me is do you suck it up and make necessary safety improvements so that there is not a repeat performance, or do you fight every inch, tooth and nail, in the state of denial? Make the improvements.

Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option. Concrete levees are a better one, but economics states you only build them as high as you need to. every additonal foot adds to the base size required, and creates access issues as well.

The tagged deficiency appears to be a mid level one. If it were critical it would not allow response, you would basically just have to do it. We have similar audits and this would be a mid level issue for us as well, giving us up to 60 days to correct it.

When you build levees you typically build them for the 100 year flood. This was a 200 year flood. When that happens you have to take extra precautions. Also remember that even if the reactor was in full power mode they would have had to shut it off anyway due to even moderate flooding. So basically you would have had several days to cool it down before the flooding reached the levels we saw in the pictures.

Intense, your concerns are well thought out, and I agree you do have a right to be concerned. I work in Engineering, and we would all like to make everything 100% safe. however 100% safety isnt possible. You implement the best controls you can, and in the case of nuke reactors, go with a layered defense. Here the layered defense worked.
Even if some of the layers failed temporarily.


I

Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option.
One reason I mentioned the pumps was that the NRC Report stated that they were inadequate. Another was the length of time the water sat. Even utilizing Fire Engine Pumps to drain the standing water would have been an improvement.

In general it would be great to see improvement on our ability to repair Levy breaches around the country. Maybe they should all have railroad track across the top. In my mind I envision something that would incorporate railroad track, flat cars, and a mechanism of layered louvered locking steel plates, that would swing down, close when in position, and be filled with cement. Cool huh.

Sounds good, but something like that requires constant maintenance. People like concrete/dirt levees because once you make them maintenance consists of driving down the road next to them once a week looking for problems. Once you get into mechanisms and plates you have to maintain them.

You also discount the force of water once it breaches something. Trying to slam the plates in while the water is gushing through would probably be futile.

We also do not have access to the plant O&M manual so we really don't know how thier sump system is designed.

 

[Intense]

Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option. Concrete levees are a better one, but economics states you only build them as high as you need to. every additonal foot adds to the base size required, and creates access issues as well.

The tagged deficiency appears to be a mid level one. If it were critical it would not allow response, you would basically just have to do it. We have similar audits and this would be a mid level issue for us as well, giving us up to 60 days to correct it.

When you build levees you typically build them for the 100 year flood. This was a 200 year flood. When that happens you have to take extra precautions. Also remember that even if the reactor was in full power mode they would have had to shut it off anyway due to even moderate flooding. So basically you would have had several days to cool it down before the flooding reached the levels we saw in the pictures.

Intense, your concerns are well thought out, and I agree you do have a right to be concerned. I work in Engineering, and we would all like to make everything 100% safe. however 100% safety isnt possible. You implement the best controls you can, and in the case of nuke reactors, go with a layered defense. Here the layered defense worked.
Even if some of the layers failed temporarily.


I

Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option.
One reason I mentioned the pumps was that the NRC Report stated that they were inadequate. Another was the length of time the water sat. Even utilizing Fire Engine Pumps to drain the standing water would have been an improvement.

In general it would be great to see improvement on our ability to repair Levy breaches around the country. Maybe they should all have railroad track across the top. In my mind I envision something that would incorporate railroad track, flat cars, and a mechanism of layered louvered locking steel plates, that would swing down, close when in position, and be filled with cement. Cool huh.

Sounds good, but something like that requires constant maintenance. People like concrete/dirt levees because once you make them maintenance consists of driving down the road next to them once a week looking for problems. Once you get into mechanisms and plates you have to maintain them.

You also discount the force of water once it breaches something. Trying to slam the plates in while the water is gushing through would probably be futile.

We also do not have access to the plant O&M manual so we really don't know how thier sump system is designed.

I was thinking that the plates go into the current with the louvers open to reduce drag like open blinds. design them so that when they are in place, you release the safety and the current or gravity slams them shut. 2-3 rows thick, filled in with concrete and it is entombed. The Steel reinforces the concrete, like re-bar. The only problem I see would be debris getting caught in the louvers before they close. Just a thought anyway.

 

[taichiliberal]

You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening.

I'm talking about WHAT HAPPENED, Marty boy....the berm, part of the safety systems, BUSTED! There was an UNPRECEDENTED flood....and the contingency plans THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LAUDED didn't include that unprecedented flood. But NOW that you realize that it was by sheer luck and the Grace of God that the uprecedented flood waters didn't go a few feet more, YOU are now trying to BS your way pass the FACT that I'm right and you're wrong on this point. Sorry Marty, but the chronology of the post exposes your intellectual dishonesty and piss poor attempt to dodge your failure.

My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured.

Actually, your problem is NOT acknowledging the failures and problems of the nuke industry....and then dodging and misrepresenting fact based critiques. This "incident" with this plant started with an UNPRECEDENTED flood endangering a nuke plant...a broken berm wall and everyone nervously watching whether the flood levels would continue to rise......so spare us all your hyperbole and exaggerations, Marty boy.

There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.

The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows. Carry on predictably, Marty boy.

Why would a contigency plan include an unprecedented flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.

Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.

I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.

You don't even understand the concept of unprcedented events, do ya Marty boy? Bottom line: the Nuke power plant wonks and toadies are consistently assuring everyone that all contingency plans are sound, and all the bases are covered.

Then God and Mother Nature decides to play by a different set of rules, and suddenly all that expertise is either for naught or proven to be frightfully flawed.

Time and again YOU keep making lame ass excuses for a system that had failed, AND BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD was not further inundated by higher flood waters. The "system" lucked out, plain and simple, and all your supposition and conjecture won't change that, Marty boy. You "don't get" that and WON'T get that because it would mean admitting a serious flaw in the religious mantra of how safe nuke plants have been all these years. I expect nothing less or more from the likes of you, Marty boy....Carry on predictably, my little nuke power toadie.