Nuclear plant operator agrees to pay record fine(reactor almost blew top)

[Algorem]

($5.45 million fine should've been $75.8 million)

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/business-5/1126744440140400.xml&storylist=cleveland

9/14/2005, 8:27 p.m. ET
The Associated Press

AKRON, Ohio (AP) — The operator of the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant agreed Wednesday to pay a record $5.45 million fine for failing to stop an acid leak that nearly ate through a 6-inch steel cap on the reactor vessel.

The FirstEnergy Corp. plant along the Lake Erie shore near Toledo has been under a constant watch by federal regulators since 2002 when a routine inspection revealed the leaking boric acid on the reactor cap...

The agency could have fined the company $75.8 million. Still the fine more than doubled the previous record sanction imposed by the agency.

FirstEnergy has 16 power plants and provides service in New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Besse

Davis-Besse nuclear power plant is a single unit nuclear reactor located in Oak Harbor, Ohio. It is owned and operated by FirstEnergy Corp. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Davis-Besse has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979.



http://www.nonuclear.net/wealmostlostohio.htm

We Almost Lost Ohio -- And Your State Could Be Next

By Russell D. Hoffman

Did you hear about what almost happened at Davis-Besse, a nuclear reactor in Ohio?

It would have been "10 times worse than Chernobyl" as one eminent scientist I've spoken to put it.

Most people have no idea how close we came to catastrophe. A mere half inch.

Here's the basic sequence, in lay-person's terms:...

[geomon666]

1. Well look at what I found here.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050811/canada_u_s_pollution_suit.html?.v=4

Residents of Ontario, Canada, have brought a lawsuit against 13 major U.S. and Canadian power companies seeking $50 billion to compensate them for alleged pollution damage from the companies' power plants.

The complaint focuses on pollution from coal-burning power plants in Ontario, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky.

The corporations with subsidiaries named in the complaint are Ontario Power, DTE Energy Co., American Electric Power Co., FirstEnergy Corp., Reliant Energy, Public Service Enterprise Group, Exelon Corp., Allegheny Energy, Cinergy Corp., DPL Inc., Constellation Energy, PPL Corp. and Pepco Holdings Inc.

"The pollutants emitted by the defendants, alone and in combination, contribute to high levels of ambient air pollution, including ground-level ozone and particulate matter throughout Ontario, causing or contributing to severe public health and environmental problems," the plaintiffs allege in their complaint.


Also, the chairman of FirstEnergy Corp. is George M. Smart. George M. Smart is also on the board of directors for the Ball Corporation...which owns Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., which develops sensors, spacecraft, systems and components for government and commercial markets.

Just something to think about.

[NorthernSpy]

2. one of the happiest days of my life...

... was the day that my state's only nuclear power plant shut down for good. Later, they even blew up the containment dome, and lots of people came to watch. No more nuke plant. It's gone. They'll never be able to reopen it.

The sooner we shut 'em ALL down, the better (I say, rubbing my hands).

[Tesha]

4. Won't happen. The energy crisis has been carefully managed to ensure...

Won't happen. The energy crisis has been carefully managed to ensure
that only nuclear energy (from fission, not fusion) can save our
lame asses from being forced to revert to a pre-industrial life
style.

We could have had fusion in time to meet the needs, but Reagan
cut the funding.

We could have had more energy-efficient transportation, but auto
lobysists blocked rises in CAFE standards and introduced CAFE-immune
SUVs.

We could have had more energy-efficient housing and commercial
buildings, but...

We could have had large-scale solar, wind, and ocean power, but...

So look for the building of *A LOT* more fission plants in the
next few decades.

Tesha

[Blue_Tires]

13. sad and very scary

we are WAY behind the curve in finding alt. energy sources

[KareBear]

5. The new generation of nuclear plants aren't THAT bad actually

Especially the pebble breeder reactors that China is starting to use. The problem in the US is that we are using antiquated systems.

In order to move to a hydrogen economy and away from gasoline, we're going to have to find safe ways to utilize nuclear power. Saying that its ALL bad though is like saying computers are toys because all we have around are Atari 2600s :)

[MadHound]

7. But even the the newest generation of reactors won't correct

The two biggest problems facing the nuclear industry, human error and the safe disposal of the waste.

You can build the most sophisticated mechanically foolproof reactor known to man, yet you still won't erradicate the problem of human error, it just can't be done. And while human error in most cases can be either minimized, or doesn't do catastrophic damage when it occurs, with a nuke plant, even the smallest of human errors can have extreme consequences. Witness Three Mile Island. I very technologically sophisticated reactor, yet it was human error that brought it down, and almost turned PA into a nuclear wasteland.

Secondly, what do we do with the radioactive wastes? We have not developed any sort of safe storage or disposal methods for nuclear waste. Yucca Mt. is a joke. Dye tests were done at the Yucca Mt site, and dye that was injected into the floor cracks of Yucca Mt. showed up in the Las Vegas groundwater two weeks later. And while waste is packed in steel drums and other suchlike sturdy containers, we are talking about storing this waste for thousands upon thousands of years. Steel rusts and other material degenerates over the space of as little as fifty years. Once the primary waste container is compromised, it is only two weeks before Las Vegas has to deal with contaminated groundwater.

Rather rely on such a dangerous technology, we should instead embark on a crash course of switching over to clean, renewable energy sources, things like wind, solar, bio-diesel, biomass, etc. Unlike nuclear, renewables are sustainable, low polluting forms of energy that can provide more than ample amounts of energy for the US. In fact according to the 1991 DOE report on US energy resources, there is enough harvestable wind resources in North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas to provide for all of our electricity needs, including growth, through the year 2030.

Nulcear should be thrown on the scrap heap of failed ideas. It has a few, limited uses, but for the most part it is something that the American public should abandon.

[hunter]

8. It's entirely disingenuous talking about "the safe disposal of waste..."

...in the context of the nucler power without mentioning how the coal industry is spewing billions (perhaps trillions) of tons of hazardous waste into our environment every year.

[MadHound]

9. Oh please, this is a discussion about nuclear power friend

And yes, the coal industry is spewing out tons and tons of hazardous waste daily, no arguement there. Did you happen to note where I am proposing that we go with clean, renewable alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, bio-diesel, etc? Did I mention coal anywhere in there?

And there is one huge difference between the waste products that coal plants emit and the waste products that nuke plants emit, and that is time. Nuclear wastes will be destroying the health and well being of people for thousands and thousands of years, while the wastes from coal plants will only being doing this for a couple of generations tops.

[hunter]

10. Hmmm, mercury from coal plants has a half life of ... FOREVER.

The same environmental processes that sequester toxic waste from coal plants operate just as well on nuclear wastes.

That doesn't mean we should pay as little attention to nuclear waste as we do to coal waste, only that the hazards of nuclear waste are much overated in the public perception, while the hazards of coal waste are much underated.

All told, any given coal power plant will eventually kill more people than any given nuclear power plant.

I myself am not "pro-nuclear," I am just less anti-nuclear than I am anti-coal.

Coal is killing us.

[MadHound]

12. I agree with you that the public is underrating the dangers of coal

However I don't think that the dangers of nuclear waste is being overrated. Mercury doesn't emit like nuke waste does, even when shielded. And exposing nuclear waste to the enviroment only worsens the effects that such nuclear waste will have, not lessen it.

As far as your assertion that a coal plant will kill more people than a nuke plant, well that is really still a question that is waiting for an answer. There are many many cancers out there that are becoming ever more increasingly linked with nuclear waste, handling of nuclear material, or being exposed to nuclear waste that man let go into the enviroment. Then there are places like Chernobyl, where literally hundreds of thousands of people were and continuing to be exposed to radiation damage from the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl plant.

But friend, this isn't an either-or, zero sum game. This country can, and should, supply all of our energy needs without resorting to either coal or nuclear power, or any other such polluting energy source. Again, that is why I continue to stress the need to switch this country over to such things as wind, solar, etc. etc.

Rather than stick with dead end energy plans involving nuclear, coal, etc. let us rather work towards developing an energy infrastructure that does the least amount of enviromental damage.

[hunter]

14. "...emit like nuke waste does..." What's that mean?

Alpha, beta, gamma?

The mechanisms of toxicity are diverse...

You can't say the emission of "radiation" is somehow qualitatively worse than the biological disruptions caused by something like methyl-mercury. It's all part of the stew we live in, some natural, some man-made.

Our goal here is to reduce, as best we can, the damage done by man-made toxins of any sort.

25% of the electricity I use is generated by nuclear power plants in California, Washington, and Arizona. 3% of my electricity comes from coal. I would not have those nuclear power plants replaced by coal fired power plants.

Going back to the original post, it is very clear that the nuclear plant in Ohio was operated in a negligent manner. But comparisons to Chernobyl are probably not valid. That said, it's a good thing the acid did not eat all the way through the lid of the reactor. That would have been a very dangerous real-world demonstration of the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness!) of the emergency containment systems. I do think Russell D. Hoffman's analysis at nonuclear.net is the worst sort of hyperbole (millions dead!), but I wouldn't want to see that demonstrated.

[MadHound]

15. Emit=radiate, and yes it is all three , alpha, beta, gamma

And yes, I can say that radiation is qualitatively worse, because of one simple fact, that radiation lives on for thousands upon thousands of years. It is absorbed by plants, by the animals who eat the plants, by the animals who eat those animals. Methyl-mercury, once it is absorbed into the earth, stays in the earth. It breaks down, and eventually you're left with simple mercury. It isn't going to continue to bite you like nuke waste will.

And you keep coming back at this like it is some either/or choice when it isn't. Why not ditch both in favor of safer, cleaner, sustainable alterhnatives, wind, solar, bio-diesel, etc.? Why do you feel it has to be an either/or choice when it doesn't?

And comparisons to Chernobyl are entirely valid, for one very good reason. What caused both accidents? What has caused every single nuclear accident and incident? Human error, the one thing that you can never, ever engineer out of a reactor, and the one factor that is the most deadly.

And I don't think that millions dead is hyperbole. Given the time factor, Chernobyl could very well mount a toll of millions in the future. If you ever have a complete containment breach at any nuke plant, yes, millions will die, either immediately due to radiation sickness, and in the aftermath due to cancers and other fun radiation spawned diseases.

But as I said earlier, it doesn't have to be an either/or thing. Rather, let us ditch both in favor of clean, renewable alternatives.

[hunter]

17. Mercury will continue to bite you...

There are all sorts of ways mercury can re-enter the biosphere. Same goes for nuclear waste.

Yes, I can imagine an economy where we "ditch both" but it is a very difficult thing to accomplish.

At some point, probably very soon, nature is going to veto our increasing reliance on coal by destroying our industrial economy.

I suspect disasters such as Katrina will become increasingly common as we pump more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

[Demeter]

21. Coal Waste Is Recyclable

Everything in coal can be captured and reused: carbon, hydrogen, sulfur. Even the heavy metals can be captured and used or stored properly WITHOUT causing genetic damage or 100000 years of contamination.

Fission cannot make such a claim. It's just one big, slow dirty bomb. THe structures remain, while all life ceases.

[Nihil]

23. Well, it "can" be ...

... but here & now (in the real world) it isn't.

The coal-fired power stations simply dump it into the atmosphere and
onto the spoil heaps (for the wind & water to redistribute).

This happens every day in normal operation, 24x7. Now = not in 2015.
It started on the first day the boiler was fired up and will continue
throughout the entire life of the power station until that too is an
"empty structure".

Without wishing to put words into other people's mouths, I think that
this *real world* issue is a lot of why people prefer nuclear power
to coal.

The only practical hope for the future is through a major reduction
in consumption - starting today (if not earlier). Everything in the
"add generator capacity" channel that is not already underway involves
timescales of decades. We do not have this time available.
By all means make the plans for the future replacement generators but
this will not benefit anyone in the next 5-10 years.

We also do not have the luxury of closing down "type X" power stations
for political reasons as the demand is still there (and, currently,
rising). There are only two things that we can actually do:

We need to work at an individual level to reduce waste, increase
efficiency, reduce demand. Every person who is reading this forum
can do this (if they're not already).

We need to work at every conventional power station to filter the
emissions - not just to the pathetically watered-down "legal" levels
but to *healthy* levels.

Unfortunately, this second point is where hard science falls foul of
greedy politics. It is the place where my idealism becomes as unreal
as your idealism (albeit for different reasons) and is the reason why
the human race basically deserves to become extinct: the corrupt,
short-sighted greedy scum have taken control of the future of humanity
and so will kill millions for the sake of their own brief moment of
hedonistic excess.

[Xithras]

24. The problem is that NONE of those solutions actually scale

Wind - There have been several studies done that show the inability of wind to replace our current power infrastructure. We would literally have to line every ridge line and pass in the country with windmills to generate enough power, which would be an environmental nightmare in and of itself.

Solar - Only works in a few parts of the country, and requires vast tracts of land to be dedicated to its arrays or mirrors. Also only works during the day.

Bio-diesel - We would have to convert wide areas of farmland to soy in order to really convert to bio-diesel, because the amount of bio-diesel required to power the lives of 350 million+ people is staggering. In addition to increasing the worlds hunger problems by reducing US food exports, a national conversion to bio-diesel would require us to add MORE farmland into production. Which forests shall we cut or prairies should we plow under to do that? Then there's that pesky issue about the methane and other greenhouse gasses released when you start decomposing the non-oilseed parts of the plants at these scales.

Biomass - Biomass solves nothing. It reduces our oil and coal dependency by replacing it with a source that pollutes just as badly. If you use the traditional method to harness biomass energy...burning it...you're spewing tons of particulate pollution into the air, along with countless greenhouse gasses. If you use the newer methods of capturing gas releases from decomposing matter, you still have the issue of methane releases from leaks and CO2 pollution when you use the gas.

Just because an energy source is renewable, doesn't make it earth-friendly. In fact, I'd say that using a polluting renewable resource is WORSE for the planet, since there would no longer be a major impetus to change away from it...we could go on polluting forever.

[Tikki]

22. One of the happiest days of our lives...

...was when my boyfriend (and then husband) and I turned 18 years old and we could legally move away from our parents' home and away from the nuclear reactors that dotted the landscape outside our home town....


Well, maybe no more active reactors, but large amounts of nuclear waste sit right under the feet of those who live there now...



The Tikkis

[glugglug]

3. IIRC that was one of the key plants involved in the blackout 2 years ago

Of course, the REAL reason for the blackout was that the computers running the SCADA system to control power distribution were rebooting from the MS-Blaster worm. The communication between them is stupidly done through DCOM, so they can't just block the netbios ports to avoid MS Blaster and other holes since DCOM uses them.

[ReadTomPaine]

6. Are you serious?

This is amazingly naive and unprofessional. What a way to run a powergrid, and a nuclear one at that.

Thanks for this info.

[B3Nut]

11. Anyone using M$ OS'es for critical infrastructure

needs to be canned. That is beyond irresponsible. And using code dependent on a long-known vulerability? Windows is not a safe OS for any application on which life itself is dependent.

Todd in Beerbratistan

[Lisa]

19. Yeah -- "FirstEnergy" sounded awfully familiar

I'm in Canada, and even we heard about that, up here!

[struggle4progress]

16. kick

[GainesT1958]

18. "Don't want to land on no Three Mile Island...

I don't want to see my skin glow!":eyes:

B-)

[burrowowl]

20. What a piddling fine

for something of very very grave consequences! We still don't know if they have really repaired it and found the cause!