HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » First Energy Davis Besse ...

Thu Dec 8, 2011, 11:42 AM

First Energy Davis Besse nuclear: cracks in the containment vessel to go with corrosion in the head

[font size = 3]...of the steel pressure vessel. [/font]

The corrosion around the nozzles of the head were the story of the last decade. There was a hole "as big as a football" in the reactor head. The only metal containing the radioactive water was the layer of chromium plating on the reactor head. Three engineers were found guilty of falsifying safety records in that instance.

Now, the plant owners are reporting a second occurrence cracks in the concrete of the containment vessel. The first crack was a fifteen foot long "hairline crack" near the bottom of the containment vessel.

I will keep you posted about this hazard on our lake. There are relicensing hearings coming up. Hopefully, my thread will outlast Davis Besse.

Davis Besse operators admit to more cracks than previously announced
Thanks to WTOL television

TOLEDO, OH (WTOL) - After admitting to discovering cracks in the concrete shell of the Davis-Besse nuclear reactor last month, the plant's operator says there more cracks near the top of the structure. The cracks were immediately announced to the necessary regulators, but they were not made public at the time.

On Wednesday, a spokesperson for FirstEnergy Corp. told The Associated Press that the cracks were found in November. Jennifer Young, the plant's spokesperson, says that the cracks were reported to the U.S. Nuclear regulatory Commission, and they never tried to hide the information.
...edit for copyright reasons...
http://www.wtol.com/story/16214458/davis-besse

Davis-Besse meeting postponed
Thanks to The Toledo Blade

...FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, meanwhile, announced Tuesday that the Davis-Besse plant resumed producing electricity at 7:23 a.m. Tuesday following a nine-week shutdown for a reactor-head replacement. The plant was at 23 percent power on Tuesday morning and is expected to reach full output later this week.

A 30-foot, hairline crack was discovered in the shield building Oct. 10 after a contractor cut an access hole through the structure for the reactor-head replacement. Further investigation revealed additional cracking in the concrete, but last week the NRC authorized First Energy to restart the plant while further research about the cracking is conducted.
...edit for copyright reasons...

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2011/12/06/Davis-Besse-meeting-postponed.html

51 replies, 8210 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply First Energy Davis Besse nuclear: cracks in the containment vessel to go with corrosion in the head (Original post)
Kolesar Dec 2011 OP
kristopher Dec 2011 #1
FBaggins Dec 2011 #2
madokie Dec 2011 #4
FBaggins Dec 2011 #5
Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #21
madokie Dec 2011 #3
wtmusic Dec 2011 #6
diane in sf Dec 2011 #7
wtmusic Dec 2011 #8
jpak Dec 2011 #9
wtmusic Dec 2011 #10
jpak Dec 2011 #11
wtmusic Dec 2011 #12
jpak Dec 2011 #13
madokie Dec 2011 #14
wtmusic Dec 2011 #16
madokie Dec 2011 #25
wtmusic Dec 2011 #28
wtmusic Dec 2011 #15
wtmusic Dec 2011 #17
jpak Dec 2011 #18
wtmusic Dec 2011 #24
jpak Dec 2011 #26
wtmusic Dec 2011 #27
jpak Dec 2011 #29
PamW Jan 2012 #40
FBaggins Jan 2012 #41
PamW Jan 2012 #45
jpak Jan 2012 #48
Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #19
wtmusic Dec 2011 #20
Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #22
wtmusic Dec 2011 #23
kristopher Dec 2011 #30
joshcryer Dec 2011 #31
wtmusic Dec 2011 #32
kristopher Dec 2011 #33
wtmusic Dec 2011 #34
Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #35
FBaggins Jan 2012 #43
madokie Jan 2012 #44
PamW Jan 2012 #47
Kolesar Dec 2011 #37
Kolesar Dec 2011 #36
Kolesar Jan 2012 #38
kristopher Jan 2012 #39
FBaggins Jan 2012 #42
PamW Jan 2012 #46
Kolesar Jan 2012 #49
Kolesar Jan 2012 #50
FBaggins Jan 2012 #51

Response to Kolesar (Original post)

Thu Dec 8, 2011, 05:24 PM

1. Here is a contribution with photos...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 9, 2011, 09:03 PM

2. Oh goody

spam works on DU3 too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 10, 2011, 08:28 AM

4. So factual evidence is spam?

Who woulda' thunk'it.
In this case only a person shilling for the nuclear industry would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 10, 2011, 09:19 PM

5. When posted over and over and over? Sure.

But we're both just checking out DU3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 06:46 PM

21. Facts never get old...

Unsubstantiated claims do however....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2011, 08:26 AM

3. The thing with concrete is there is no difference between a hairline as they put it, or a big crack

except for the size, a crack is a crack. Which is broken concrete which has no strength anymore. The only thing holding it together anymore is the rebar used and when this plant was built my bet is there wasn't any epoxy coated rebar like we have and use in our bridge construction now because its more resistant to the salt they put on the roads during ice storms. I'm not even sure epoxy coated rebar would matter in a nuclear containment anyway, the temperatures they'd be subjected to and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Original post)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 03:43 AM

6. Another corrosion photo



Operating that one reactor prevents a coal-pollution death every three days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 04:33 AM

7. Could just as easily be corrosion due to inhalation of radioactive particles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diane in sf (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 12:11 PM

8. Actually, no.

There's no evidence to suggest radiation is responsible for anything close to the 25,400 U.S. deaths which occur as the result of burning coal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 12:27 PM

9. Yes - that's why taxpayers have spent BILLIONS to compensate nuclear workers for radiation-induced

illness and death

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 12:29 PM

10. Nope (and capitalizing lies doesn't make them true)

Come back with links or please...don't bother.

Keerist, I can't wait for ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 12:46 PM

11. I've posted on the TWO federal compensation programs many times here

Tens of thousands of US nuclear workers have been paid BILLIONS for radiation exposure and illness and death it caused.

Use the GOOGLE this time - key words - Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 12:49 PM

12. The GOGLE and the GOGGLE both show more cancer deaths from coal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 01:00 PM

13. I did your work for you - here's some links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Exposure_Compensation_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Employees_Occupational_Illness_Compensation_Program

<snip>

Between 2000 and 2009, EEOICP has provided more than $5 billion [5] in benefits to sick workers and their families.

<snip>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 01:23 PM

14. wt where did you go

come back here and feed us some more bull please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 01:36 PM

16. Please chime in, madokie

with any evidence you have that radioactive particles are more responsible for lung cancer than coal pollution.

z-z-z

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 08:09 PM

25. Only someone who is in denial about the dangers their pet project will ask that question

I doubt that any evidence can be found as the nuclear industry denies any and all responsibility for anything except the 19% or so of power they do deliver. Everything else is denied by them. Always has been like that too I might add. I suggest you read something besides pro-nuke and you'll find the answer yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 09:56 PM

28. That's correct, no evidence can be found.

That should be a tipoff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 01:34 PM

15. #1 Scientific method requires a claimant to back up their own claims

#2 I need you to back up your seconding of dianeinsf's claim that "...(lung cancer) could just as easily be corrosion due to inhalation of radioactive particles".

But you can't, can you? I didn't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 01:38 PM

17. Ha! From nuclear weapons testing.

Nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 02:03 PM

18. Nope - it includes workers in the nuclear fuel cycle -

uranium miners & transporters
uranium millers
uranium fuel fabrication workers
uranium enrichment workers

and

as...we start to blend-down weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to make fuel for commercial nuclear power plants - all those chickens come home to roost.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 07:00 PM

24. All for nuclear weapons.

z-z-z

nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 09:08 PM

26. Sorry - the same enrichment plants that made HEU for bombs make fuel for commercial nukes

same for the uranum mines, and mills and fuel fabrication plants

and...when you use blend down weapons grade nuclear material for fuel - all that baggage comes with it.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 09:54 PM

27. Since your post 3 Americans have died from coal pollution

None from nuclear. Is that the baggage you were referring to?

Yup?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:16 PM

29. Nope

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 03:31 PM

40. Didn't do the work very well...

Between 2000 and 2009, EEOICP has provided more than $5 billion in benefits to sick workers and their families.
=============================

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 was principally for the "atomic veterans". Those are the members of the military that were in trenches at the Nevada Test Site when an atmospheric nuclear test was triggered, and then the servicemen got out of their trenches and marched toward "ground zero". It was an exercise to acqaint the soldiers to conditions on the nuclear battlefield.

The Energy Occupational Illness Compensation Program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Employees_Occupational_Illness_Compensation_Program

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) was passed in 2000 and is designed to compensate individuals who worked in nuclear weapons production and as a result of occupational exposures contracted certain illnesses.

These acts were compensation to people exposed to radiation by the Government because of the Government's nuclear weapons program. The connection to radiation exposure in commercial nuclear power is WHAT?

There were compensations to people because of the use of Agent Orange, a defoliant used in Vietnam. So because all these soldiers received compensation because they were sprayed with a defoliant; that must mean that being a landscaper is hazardous work. That's the conclusion one would draw if this faulty logic were carried to its conclusion.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 04:11 PM

41. Despite the obvious logic... That won't fly here

They believe, as a fundamental religious doctrine, that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are two sides of the same coin. The civilian power reactor system exists to facilitate weapons production.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:28 PM

45. I'm not responsible for their delusions

The civilian power reactor system exists to facilitate weapons production.
===================================================

I'm know that is a "fixed point" for the anti-nukes, but it is just not true.

I'm not responsible for their delusions. People are entitled to their opinions; but they are not entitled to their own FACTS.

The fact of the matter is that the US nuclear weapons program BY LAW is self-sufficient from the commercial nuclear power program. EVERY BIT of plutonium that is in US nuclear weapons came from either the reactors at the Government-owned Hanford complex, or the Government-owned Savannah River complex.

Every bit of highly enriched Uranium (HEU) came from Government-owned facilities at Oak Ridge, TN, or Paducah, KY, or Portsmouth, OH. These facilities are also used to provide slightly enriched fuel for commercial reactors. However, that is the commercial nuclear power program feeding off the nuclear weapons program, and not the other way around.

Congress actually requires in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that the nuclear weapons program has to be self-sufficient, and only rely on Government-owned facilities.

The other special material needed in addition to Plutonium and HEU is Tritium. For decades, ALL the Tritium in US nuclear weapons came from the production reactors at Savannah River. However, in 1988; the last of these reactors was shut down.

For many years, the US had no source of new Tritium and relied on what it had on hand. However, that was not a long-term solution since Tritium is radioactive with a 12 year half-life and decays to Helium-3 with time. Therefore, the USA had to either build a new production reactor, or find some other way to make Tritium.

It was President Clinton that made the decision to resolve that problem. President Clinton decided NOT to spend money to build a new reactor, because the Government already owned some reactors. The TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority is a Government entity, and in addition to dams, it also owns some power reactors like Browns Ferry. President Clinton decided that one of these reactors could be used to produce the needed Tritium. Only since 2003 has Watts Bar been making Tritium for nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Watts Bar fulfills the mandate of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 because it is owned by the federal Government via the TVA. NO commercial power reactors owned by private corporations are allowed to make Tritium for nuclear weapons.

As I've stated in the past, if you have a beef with the US Air Force, or you don't like the US Air Force for whatever reason, then protesting against, or economically damaging the US commercial airlines is NOT a sensible way of opposing the Air Force. Even if you drove all the airlines into the ground, the US Air Force would still be whole. Just because the US Air Force gets some of its planes from Boeing, and the commercial airlines get some of their planes from Boeing, doesn't mean that the commercial airlines exist to facilitate the US Air Force.

PamW


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 04:23 PM

48. Those programs cover uranium miners and millers, and uranium enrichment plant workers

that make fuel for commercial nuclear power plants.

and now that we are using HUE from the nuclear weapons program to make commercial nuclear fuel, all the death and illness from that enterprise belongs to the nuclear power industry.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 03:43 PM

19. Bright shiny object thrown...

Nuclear is not as bad a coal!

Quick, look over there at that coal plant and take your eyes off our nuclear operations!!!

Hurry, hurry!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob Wallace (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 06:40 PM

20. What's to 'take your eyes off'?

These things happen every day of the week. Something breaks. Something gets shut down. Something gets fixed. Something gets started up again.

Was there any risk to the public - at all? Did anyone get hurt?

Wake me up when there's something newsworthy, like, say, a tsunami or something...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 06:49 PM

22. Bet you love flying...

Boy, That Was a Close One!! Airlines....

----

TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima. More than just a close miss....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob Wallace (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 06:58 PM

23. Did someone die at Fukushima?

Since Fukushima 18,000 Americans have died from coal pollution.

You have a lot of catching up to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 11:05 PM

30. This is exactly the kind of disruption an effective host could end.

Your posts in this thread have absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP and contribute not one bit of understanding to the overall issue of nuclear safety.

It doesn't require banning anyone either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 11, 2011, 11:48 PM

31. What would you propose?

How would an "effective host" "end this disruption"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:10 AM

32. Per unit of energy generated, nuclear is the safest form of energy available

and the Davis-Besse incident never put anyone at risk.

It is irrelevant and should be portrayed as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:16 AM

33. I disagree with all three statements.

1) "Per unit of energy generated nuclear is the safest form of energy available."

No it isn't. The analysis you routinely post you are basing that claim on is false. It grossly understates the mortality associated with nuclear, fabricates numbers for solar and simply lies about wind. You know that it is false.

2)"...Davis-Besse incident never put anyone at risk."

"Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome). The notion implies that a choice having an influence on the outcome exists (or existed). Potential losses themselves may also be called "risks". Almost any human endeavor carries some risk, but some are much more risky than others."

Yes it did. This:


Together with condition we now know the containment building to be in (that didn't happen overnight) means the risk was all too real.

3) You didn't try to portray the risk or discuss the risk of the nuclear plant in any manner; you tried to disrupt the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:31 PM

34. Fine, your disagreements are based on personal prejudice and not on fact.

1) Saying something is false doesn' t make it so (and don't bother posting biased numbers of Ukrainian agencies on the take for federal and international aid from Chernobyl as evidence). I'll amend my statement slightly - per unit of energy generated nuclear is the safest form of practical energy available.
2) I said, if you had bothered to read my post, that it never put anyone at risk. It might have put an inanimate piece of metal at risk, but that's not very newsworthy, is it?
3) Nonetheless, the inconsequential incident at Davis-Besse is constantly portrayed as if it the reactor was seconds away from a meltdown, and that deserves a challenge. See the date on the photo? It's from 9+ years ago. Is that supposed to represent something of relevance in 2011?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:46 PM

35. When you remove a critical safety feature...

of a hazardous device you increase risk.

Everyone downwind of Davis-Besse was put at increased risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob Wallace (Reply #35)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 07:59 AM

43. And when you refer to a hairline crack in millions of pounds of concrete...

As "removing a critical safety feature"

You decrease credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 12:45 PM

44. The weight of the concrete has nothing to do with the fact that the concrete is in two pieces

Thankfully the weight will hold it together but it being a structurally strong structure any more, it isn't, at this point.
Oh and yes it is removing or compromising, if you will, a critical safety feature and by pointing that out is not decreasing anyones credibility as your saying it does does to yours.

The nuclear power industry lied to us from the beginning and no amount of your trying to change that is going to make a hill of beans of difference. the NRC lied to us just as well also. The government lied to us also by trying to paint a happy face on this whole nuclear genie thing. The government simply wanted acceptance of these new big bangs they've developed so they mislead us into thinking that these things are no worse than the stove in your home. What is troubling is supposedly otherwise smart people buy into this big lie just as you have.

Why don't you get your tail over to Japan and talk to the people there or Chernobyl even and see what they have to say about nuclear safety. You can bet your sweat ass what you hear won't be the shit you spout here daily.

Thats my hunch anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:46 PM

47. It also shows a lack of engineering knowledge...

hairline crack in millions of pounds of concrete...
=====================================

It also shows a lack of engineering knowledge.

Concrete is very good for compression loads; but actually poor for tensile loads.

Engineers know this; which is why they use a matrix of "rebar" in the concrete.
It's actually the rebar that handles the tensile loads. The rebar also pre-stresses the concrete so that it is always in compression. When a tensile load is applied, it really just lessens the compression forces, but the concrete stays in compression.

That's why the cracks are not important. The concrete isn't being relied on to hold tensile loads in which the crack would be important. The rebar is doing that job. The concrete is being relied on for compressive loads. However, if the concrete is being compressed, then that crack is being compressed out of existence. When the left side of the crack touches the right side of the crack, then compression forces can be transferred across the crack. It doesn't matter that the two sides don't have adhesion. That would only be required for tensile loads; but we don't rely on concrete for the tensile loads anyway.

It's making a mountain out of a molehill when someone doesn't understand what material is supporting which loads.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:24 PM

37. I understand that you support nuclear, but it is sad that your only response is a deflection`

Post a bloody and scary picture. Am I supposed to be impressed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:11 PM

36. First Energy Nuclear Operating Company Names Kendall Byrd Director of Engineering at Davis-Besse ...

(press release, printed in full)

First Energy Nuclear Operating Company Names Kendall Byrd Director of Engineering at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

AKRON, Ohio, Dec. 14, 2011 /PRNewswire

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE), has named Kendall (Ken) W. Byrd director of engineering at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Oak Harbor, Ohio. In this position, he is responsible for providing direction and oversight of the engineering activities and projects performed at Davis-Besse that support safe and reliable operations.

A 23-year employee of FirstEnergy, Byrd was most recently the director of performance improvement at Davis-Besse. He has also served as design engineering manager, superintendent of electrical maintenance and supervisor of engineering analysis at Davis-Besse.

"Ken's solid engineering background and leadership skills will support the sound work performed by Davis-Besse's engineering organization and ensure the continued safe, reliable operation of the facility," said FENOC senior vice president of Fleet Engineering Dan Pace.

Byrd holds a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from Purdue University and a master's degree in nuclear engineering form the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He also served in the nuclear navy and earned a senior reactor operator license at Davis-Besse.

FirstEnergy is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Its FENOC subsidiary operates the Beaver Valley Power Station in Shippingport, Pa., the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station and the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Perry, Ohio. More information about FENOC is available at www.fenoc.com. Follow the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station on Twitter: @DavisBesse.

SOURCE FirstEnergy Corp.

News Provided By comtexnews.net

http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/12/firstenergy-nuclear-operating-company-names-kendall-byrd-director-engineering-davis-besse-nuclear-power-station&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=EB_DAILY2&utm_term=Original-Member

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 08:20 AM

38. Protesters stage skit before Davis-Besse hearing about cracks in the containment vessel

OAK HARBOR, Ohio — Ninety minutes before a meeting was to start to discuss cracks found at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant, anti-nuclear protesters Thursday staged a brief skit that reiterated their misgivings about the plant’s resumed operation.

Kevin Kamps, a leader of Takoma Park, Md.-based Beyond Nuclear, said the skit featuring the Homer Simpson and Mr. Burns cartoon characters, King Kong, and the Besse plant as a cracking egg was “absurd, zany street theater to blow off a little steam before we head off to a very serious meeting.”

They also mocked Thursday night’s 6:30 p.m. meeting — at which some 250 people have arrived for — as a dog-and-pony show.

Characters in the skit, which was conducted with the power plant as a backdrop, pretended to repair the building’s cracks with “nuclear-grade duct tape” and “nuclear-grade Gorilla Glue” while three-eyed fish danced nearby.

“The tritium leaks into the lake are beneficial to certain species,” Mr. Kamps, as Mr. Burns, intoned.



“They don’t even know the root cause. How can they say that it’s safe at this point?” said Mr. Kamps, who played the malevolent owner of a nuclear power plant on The Simpsons cartoons series.
...
A contractor cutting an access opening to install a replacement reactor head found a 30-foot hairline crack Oct. 10. It was in the 2 1/2-foot-thick reinforced-concrete building that surrounds a 1˝-inch-thick steel containment vessel that encloses the reactor.

After a nine-week shutdown, FirstEnergy Corp. was allowed to restart the plant, citing its study that determined the cracks didn’t pose a threat. NRC officials said they also did checks and will present their findings. The plant near Oak Harbor is along Lake Erie, 30 miles east of Toledo.

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/01/05/Protesters-stage-skit-before-Davis-Besse-hearing.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 02:54 PM

39. Don't know what caused the cracks, but don't worry, it's safe.

"Barry Allen, vice president at Davis-Besse, said while no one knows exactly what caused the cracks, engineers determined the shield building can safely perform as intended."
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/oak-harbor/news/2012/jan/06/few-answers-davis-besse-cracks

It makes you think that Mr. Allen's reality is skewed 20 degrees off of the universe the rest of us live in.

...After a nine-week shutdown, however, the regulatory commission gave FirstEnergy the green light to restart the plant Dec. 6, citing a study that determined the cracks pose no threat.

FirstEnergy and regulatory commission inspectors said they investigated the extent of the cracks and also drilled through the shield building’s walls to obtain 70 core samples. Tests are still being done on the samples to determine when and how the cracks formed.

But those questions that should have been answered before the nuclear plant was turned back on, critics said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 04:14 PM

42. You don't need to know what causes new hair to grow in your ears...

... To know that they won't impact your ability to compete in a 10k run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:36 PM

46. As you've told me..

FBaggins,

As you've told me; logic and rational thought are wasted in making these arguments.

Some are going to mindlessly believe what they want to believe regardless of all facts and logic saying otherwise.

I keep falling into the same trap.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:10 AM

49. Environmental Coalition Challenges Davis-Besse License Extension on Shield Building Cracks

Today, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Coalition of Southwestern Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio filed a 60 page contention against the proposed 2017 to 2037 license extension at Davis-Besse atomic reactor on Lake Erie near Toledo, due to recently revealed severe cracking of its concrete shield building/secondardy radiological containment structure. A copy of the contention is posted here.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/FINAL%20Contention%205%20Cracking%20January%2010%202012.pdf

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowed FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company to restart the reactor on December 6, 2011, even though the root cause and full extent of the cracking has not been determined, and corrective actions have not been identified.

Also today, the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected a motion by FENOC (First Energy) calling for dismissal of the environmental coalition's primary contention against the Davis-Besse license extension -- that the nearly 910 Megawatts of electricity could be readily replaced by a combination of wind power, solar power, and energy storage. The ruling is posted here.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/ASLB%20Memorandum%20and%20Order%20Denying%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Contention%201%20Jan%2010%202012.pdf

The environmental coalition's attorney, Terry Lodge of Toledo, and its expert witness, Al Compaan, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Toledo, prepared a response to FENOC, defending the renewable energy alternatives contention; it is posted here.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/Memo%20oppstn%20MSD%20complete%20FINAL2%206pm%20Jan%209%202012.pdf

The environmental coalition issued a media release about today's filing of its shield building cracking safety challenges. The media release is posted here.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/crack%20contention%201%2010%202012%20press%20release.pdf


An NRC inspector examines one of the recently revealed cracks in the Davis-Besse concrete shield building

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2012/1/10/environmental-coalition-challenges-davis-besse-license-exten.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:29 PM

50. Before giving Davis-Besse another 20-year operating license,crack the case of the cracks:PDeditorial

Davis-Besse nuclear power plant now include mysterious hairline cracks in the outer concrete "shield building" around the reactor and its containment vessel.
These problems demand more than the usual ho-hum treatment from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

So the real mystery is why the NRC has let plant operator FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., a subsidiary of Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., power up the reactor before the utility completes its investigation into what caused the cracks.
...
Given the rocky operating history at Davis-Besse, on the Lake Erie shore near Toledo, and the large population living nearby, the NRC should have insisted on a root-cause report before permitting the plant to go back online. In 2002, the company's failure to check the lid of its nuclear reactor in a thorough and timely way allowed a gaping rust hole to grow unnoticed.
...
FirstEnergy wants to extend Davis-Besse's operating license to 2037 and has already applied for that 20-year extension. Davis-Besse's current license expires in 2017.
The reactor should not get a new lease on life until the NRC thoroughly analyzes its recent problems. Are the cracks an indicator of structural issues at Davis-Besse, making this plant too risky to operate for another two decades?

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/01/before_giving_davis-besse_anot.html

I am encouraged the the Plain Dealer would editorialize against First Energy. It had been that the PD was a mouthpiece for FE and the banks that did their financing dirty work for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:38 PM

51. See post #42

Not knowing precisely what caused "x" doesn't impact decisions like restart/recert if "x" is not a safety issue.

You could have a crack in a concrete span of a bridge and have no idea what caused it... but they aren't going to shut down the bridge (or worse, plan to replace it early) because of a crack that has no structural relevance to the safety of the bridge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread