Nebraska Nuclear Plant, Flood Berm Collapsed ..

page: 6
81
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
OFFSITE NOTIFICATION DUE TO PETROLEUM RELEASE TO THE MISSOURI RIVER

Event Number: 46989
Facility: FORT CALHOUN
Event Date: 06/26/2011
Event Time: 10:45 [CDT]

“At approximately 0125 CDT, the AquaDam providing enhanced flood protection for Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 failed. This resulted in approximately 100 gallons of petroleum being released into the river after a protective barrier was breached and many fuel containers were washed out to the river. The fuel/oil containers were staged around the facility to supply fuel for pumps which remove water within the flood containment barriers. The spill was reported to the State of Nebraska at 10:45 AM CDT on 6/26/2011.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
So while they were telling us yesterday that everything was a-ok, this really happened:







Snip

No problem, they switched back to the main power grid.

Snip

edit on 27-6-2011 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)


Have a link where they state going back in the main grid? I would think that until the situation that necessitated the use of generators was over then it would still obtain that they were off outside power.

And acceding tk your quote the fuel was used for the pumps that evacuate water from behind the berms and whatever the primary protection is. Remember the berms are a secondary (and unnecessary) precaution for flood control. The primary protection is...? What exactly. It's elevation above sea level?

With more water potentially being released upstream, and the last I checked water flows downhill.

I really want to take the blue pill on this one and not pay attention to the man behind the curtain but he's wiggling around a little too much for comfort.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


Yeah I was wondering about that myself. They went to backup early on the 26th then went back to the main grid:


It returned to grid power later Sunday.
from the NY Times: www.nytimes.com...

So they must have been on backup for several hours at least.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
This can not be good at all!




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anmarie96
This can not be good at all!



Image from 2 days ago, yellow arrow shows how far water has risen. Red arrow points to ground level spent fuel rod containers which should survive flooding.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


No. Not surprised. More disgusted than anything. Remember the War of the Worlds reading on radio back in the early part of the 20th century? This was the turning point for our country. Kind of funny to think of it like that but it was. Remember reading about all the mass hysteria and end of the world actions, discussions, events due to this simple story read on radio. This is when the media discovered how easily the masses can be manipulated. My gut feeling. The media backs the current administration. The current administration cannot afford any more negative events. So what does the media do? They focus on movies and rainbows. Nothing is happening, everything is ok.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
here is a good video of the plant .

www.rawstory.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Wth is going on these days



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I hope this info is wrong ..

"100% chance of reactor core damage if floodwaters went above 1010 ft. at Ft. Calhoun nuke plant, NRC said in 2010 — River now around 1,007 ft. and expected to rise
June 27th, 2011 at 02:36 PM"



" During their routine inspections of weather protection readiness in 2010 .. NRC estimated there was a 100% chance of reactor core damage caused by a flood rising above 1010 feet. The table at the top of Figure 1 provides the NRC’s assessment of the flooding risk while the table at the bottom provides the results from the risk assessment by Fort Calhoun Station (FCS). The company contested the NRC’s estimate. Its calculations showed that the chance of core meltdown was merely 19% for floods above 1010 feet and up to and including 1010.8 feet and only 23.9% for floods above 1010.8 feet to 1014 feet. "

"UCS cannot say that these NRC actions already prevented an accident at Fort Calhoun or that they will prevent one should the flood waters continue to rise. However, the NRC did its job last year. The NRC’s inspectors found that Fort Calhoun was supposed to be protected against floods rising to 1014 feet, but was not. The NRC’s risk analysts determined that this deficiency was not academic — floods above 1010 feet had a 100 percent chance of core meltdown. And the NRC’s managers used the agency’s enforcement process to compel the plant’s owner to remedy the shortcomings rather than merely debate their risk. "

enenews.com...

mrzine.monthlyreview.org...

water.weather.gov...

edit on 27-6-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

All is well right?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


Yeah I was wondering about that myself. They went to backup early on the 26th then went back to the main grid:


It returned to grid power later Sunday.
from the NY Times: www.nytimes.com...

So they must have been on backup for several hours at least.


Yeah, after going back and rereading a couple of the posts I skipped due to wall-of-text overwhelm, I picked out a tiny mention of the return to the main grid.
 

In doing a bit of research on Ft Calhoun, I found this interesting report linked on this page dated 2008 Nov 25.

Among other things is this page:


Note the "component" category.

RPV=reactor pressure vessel

This is the portion of the unit that houses the actual factual core assembly.

Notice how almost every single one of them (on this page, there are others) has "cracking" listed as an "aging effect"

I know this refers to microscopic cracking (or so I hope), but does it seem like the extending the operating license of a nuclear power plant that has even the tiniest crack in the RPV is a good idea?

It's not a very long report, and there is a lot of information within, so look and see if there's a plant near you which has problems with any of it's critical components.

Specifically related to Fort Calhoun is this:

During 2004 through 2005, 15 events occurred related to blockages in service water systems. These events were primarily self-revealing. The various blocking agents included silt, sand, small rocks, grass or weeds, frazil ice, and small aquatic fauna, such as fish. All these events were of low safety significance but illustrate the susceptibility of the safety-significant service water system. For instance, in September 2005, NRC inspectors identified a condition at Fort Calhoun

and

April 1997 - Fort Calhoun Manual scram and emergency boration following a 6-square-foot rupture
of a 12-inch diameter sweep elbow in the fourth-stage extraction steam piping. A non-safety-related
electrical load center, several cable trays and pipe hangers were damaged. In addition, asbestoscontaining
insulation was blown throughout the turbine building and portions of the fire protection
system were actuated. - IN 97-84


So, nothing too terrible during the time frame covered by this report at this particular plant. May be worthwhile to go looking for one of these that is a little more current.
 

reply to post by Vitchilo

Screencaps from that vid:


Pretty sure this shows water all the way up to the main buildings at the level of the white sandbags:


This is probably the main in-bound substation for the plant's offsite power surrounded by berms:


And here is another look at the plant with water right up to the building level, this is toward the end and you see several suits in hard hats walking on an elevated sidewalk of some sort:


Images are a bit pixilated, but if you watch the video you will clearly see that the water is right up against many of the buildings.
edit on 28-6-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: added vid caps



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   


It looks like the berm is gone. I found this on the NRC site for Fort Calhoun June 27:


This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE safety or public interest significance.


You think?


NRC inspectors have verified that no safety functions were adversely affected by the collapse of the water berm. The vendor of the water berm determined that the berm could not be repaired. The licensee for Fort Calhoun Station plans to install a new berm next week.


Source

They also mentioned they were on backup power, as a precautionary measure, for 12 hours on the 26th.



edit on 28-6-2011 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   


edit on 28-6-2011 by



edit on 28-6-2011 by

edit on 28-6-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV
extra DIV



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
"Big Bend Dam, South Dakota. The Missouri is flowing through the emergency spillway at Big Bend Dam. The water shooting through the spillway gates is moving so fast and with such erosive power that it is back-cutting toward the earthen dam itself. Left unchecked, the water could threaten the structural integrity of the dam. Although at present, that scenario is highly unlikely. Nonetheless, the Army is concerned about the erosion. To address the issue, a dump truck hauled large blocks of quarried stone to the trouble spot. The Army plans on dropping the rock atop the eroded bank sections to halt the back-cutting. A civilian working for the Army acknowledged that the engineers did not expect to be in this predicament when they first opened the spillway gates to the Missouri’s floodwaters. The back-cutting caught the Army by surprise. But the military is on top of the problem, with tons of pink Sioux quartzite."

"Pierre, South Dakota. The excessive outflows from Oahe Dam (located six miles upstream from Pierre and Fort Pierre) have flooded the Army’s recreation areas immediately downstream from the massive earthern structure. The river is flowing where vacationers once picnicked or camped in the shade of tall cottonwoods. The summer tourism season here is already over when it was supposed to have just begun. Although South Dakota governor Dennis Daugaard recently announced that South Dakota is open for tourism, the campgrounds below Oahe Dam are going to be closed for a long time. The water will not recede in the Pierre area until the start of the school year in late August. Even then, the Army will have to clean-up all the muck deposited atop the campground. The Army will also have to rebuild the destroyed facilities, including restrooms, picnic shelters, and electric outlets. This is going to be a lost summer at recreation sites up and down the Missouri Valley, not just downstream from Oahe. For a state as dependent on tourism as is South Dakota, this year is going to hurt."
"This entry was posted in From the Flood Zone, Missouri River Flood 2011 and tagged Army Corps of Engineers, Big Bend Dam, Dennis Daugaard, Missouri River, Missouri River Flood 2011, Oahe Dam, Pierre, South Dakota. Bookmark the permalink."

ecointheknow.com...

edit on 28-6-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I just received this fly over going east to west landing in Epley airfield in Omaha.
You can get a great view of the massive flooding, and we haven't gotten to the max yet.





posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Best quality end newest video from Jun 27, 2011 ..




Dry cask storage units is Good news ..
They are in safe dry surface for now after berm collapse, hope they stay like this in next days ..

www.rigginginternational.com...

Dry cask storage is a method of storing high-level radioactive waste, such as spent nuclear fuel

Bad news is flooding end water coming from north ..



water.weather.gov...



www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov...
edit on 28-6-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
So what you think for cask storage of high-level radioactive waste, for my look around 4-5 feet (1.3 - 1.5 meter) above water level ???





www.rigginginternational.com...

edit on 28-6-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Arnie Gundersen
June 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm EDT

Arnie Gundersen say Cooper is mach more dangerous than Fort Calhoun, because plant work all time but flood is present ..

You can listen one-hour interview, very good end long explanation for all what we don't know like hi say ..

Five OClock Shadow
archive.wbai.org...




Intake structure probably the most vulnerable, not auxiliary and containment buildings…
Intake structure draws in river water that cools reactor and spent fuel pool, critical that it stay dry…
If gets water in it and emergency service water pumps fail then you’ve got a case where you’re going to cause fuel damage…
Probably the most vulnerable at Ft Calhoun

edit on 28-6-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Can someone tell me why they don't just blow up a levee or two on the opposite side to reduce the water level and divert some of the water away from the plants. I mean they have time to evacuate the area first and it beats a nuclear disaster. I am sure there would be allot of displaced persons and property damage but it beats the alternative.Can someone explain to me why this isn't an option anyone has mentioned. I am not familiar with the area but it seems to me that that would be the logical thing to do.





new topics
top topics
 
81
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join