John and others: John writes quite a bit about the normalcy of all the glitches and failures that we are seeing, especially in infrastructure and lately, especially in nuclear utilities. But I'm reading mainstream reports that, if added together, mean that SIX emergency reactor closings have occured in a week. Apparently a few planned shutdowns a week is normal, but six and counting UNPLANNED, that is, emergency, shutdowns is *highly* unusual. Has this ever happened before? Does anyone, John included, have more information on this?

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), January 07, 2000

Answers

Cut, cut, cut . . . nick, nick, nick . . . starting to bleed all over the place. Feel fine though. OUCH! Sure wish you'd stop cutting me. Cut, cut, cut. Feeling a little woozy . . .

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 07, 2000.

Six in this the United States, that is. Please correct this if it is wrong. I'm certainly no expert on nuclear utilities.

Also, I don't want to be alarmist. These plants seem to be having no problem shutting down. My concern is the growing strain on the other power producers to support the demand load on the national electrical power grid. If this is really going to become an issue, the people need to be told.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), January 07, 2000.

Tim,

Actually, it's 5 in 9 days :-)

Without question that's over the long-term average in 9 days, but by definition there are going to be above and below average.

And 3 were pre local time and GMT rollover.

And I'm talking US reactors......are you adding in foreign reactors?

-- John H Krempasky (johnk@dmv.com), January 07, 2000.

You're correct - 6 in the US, at least 3 in Japan. One in Russia.

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 07, 2000.

Oh, and by "John", I'm referring to John H. Krempasky, a frequent poster in a number of threads below.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), January 07, 2000.

Thank you John. But is the average that you refer to the planned shutdown, unplanned shutdown, or all shutdown average? Thank you for your patience on this.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), January 07, 2000.

Dear Tim Phronesia,

Sir why don't you ask "Engineer" he is the expert on all things electrical (if you don't believe it, ask him! And He'll tell you how expert he is). But yes, on a more somber note. Six unplanned for shut downs are unusual. But Tim, the likelyhood of a "China Syndrome" is very very unlikely. There could be serious damage done in an unplaneed shut down! This is true! But, if my poor old memory serves me right. There are three seperate lines, three seperate controls for every thing pertaining to the reactor, the turbine etc. I do not think that there would be the loss (collateral damage) of one person living away from a nuclear generating complex. The people who work there, are well tained, and dedicated to their positions of respondsibility (remember! Their wives / husbands and children live near that complex also).

My only qualm with nuclear power, is that we have as yet to find a way to dispose of our high and low levels of nuclear waste. And someday soon, it will be, I fear, the nuclear waste which will poison our water tables. To the point of where large parts of our lands will be unlivable for thousands of years to come.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunke@forty.feet), January 07, 2000.

Even safe shutdown's without a China Syndrome are still a major concern if they keep going at this pace - nuclear power accounts for 40% of total power east of the Mississippi River.

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 07, 2000.

I missed the Daily Events Report for 1/3/99. Could someone tell me what happened to South Texas 2?   I haven't been able to figure out how to pull a previous day report from the NRC site. 


Thanks in advance.

-- ralph (r@lph.y), January 07, 2000.

LOL... I never said that we would still have power if the majorty, or even a significate number of the nukes are scrammed. Chuckle! All I said was that we would not glow in the dark (so I guess we'd better keep the candles, flashlights etc).So that we'll have somethig (besides our glowing hides) to see by...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), January 07, 2000.

Back in the old AEC days, there was an accident that depicted just how vulnerable nuclear plants are to human error. I think the facility was Brown's Ferry or some place with a name like that. I'm recalling this from 1975 portion of my memory. There was some kind of gas leak underneath the control room. So a well meaning technician supposedly went walking/crawling under the control room to examine the piping and conduits to find the leak. He used a candle to find where the gas was escaping. Well guess what, he found the leak and the leaking gas was flamable.

There was a fire below the control room which caused the plant to be shutdown until the control room could be repaired/rebuilt. I don't recall if anyone was killed or injured, but it was very serious.

On the military side there have been many reactor accidents where workers have been killed. Ever heard of a control rod pop? One incident I recall tells of a worker being impailed on the cieling of a containment vessel by a fast moving control rod. However the military is not required to report these to the public.

Point is, the suggestion that tripple backups and good people are sufficent to safeguard against exposure to nuclear radiation from a power plant incident is not a good one. Human error is always a problem and the consequences are generally regarded pretty severe compared to conventional power plant incidents.

Now with 'possible' y2k glitches thrown into the mix one might concede the safety issue becomes more of a concern.

This is why the operating params for nuclear power planta are so restrictive.

-- warren blim (mr_little@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Oh jeez!  That was habit typo.......I did not mean 99(it's like when you're trying to write checks) and would really appreciate it if someone knows about South Texas.

Slowly making the rollover myself it seems.

-- ralph (r@lph.y), January 07, 2000.