Mass. nuke plant has a fire in a cabinet

[ensho]

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index.php?smp=&lang=eng

Area: USA, State of Massachusetts, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Palnt, Plymouth

Description:


Firefighters quickly extinguished a fire at the Pilgrim Nuclear Station that apparently started in a cabinet in an area that calibrates safety equipment. A spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says there were no injuries and no release of radioactivity in the Wednesday night fire. Spokesman Neil Sheehan said the fire was detected just after 8 p.m. on the second floor of a calibration laboratory. The fire was in a maintenance building and not in the reactor building. The Plymouth Fire Department as well as on-site firefighters responded. The sprinkler system also activated. Because it took more than 10 minutes to extinguish and because off-site response was needed, it was classified as an unusual event. The incident remains under investigation.
----------------------


there should be NO fires or explosions in a nuke plant

[wtmusic]

1. There should be no world hunger either

but isn't it nice to know that thanks to a working and required sprinkler and alarm system this small fire was quickly extinguished? :shrug:

[bigtree]

2. the concern for nuke plant safety shouldn't be extinguished

. . . by these reports, it should heighten concern and spark necessary questions from the surrounding communities. Nuclear plant safety isn't something the past administration took much responsibility for.

There really isn't much value in promoting 'safe nuclear power' by working to dampen interest in safety incidents of concern. That's your thing, isn't it?

[ogneopasno]

3. If there's incident-free energy generation, whatever the source, we should probably use that one.

What would that be?

[bigtree]

4. the one which has PROVEN to be as environmentally responsible

. . . as it is sustainable.

I don't believe nuclear energy has proven itself to be that source, yet. Until the issue of containment of it's waste is addressed completely, and not just academically, there really isn't any justification for expanding it. We're still cleaning up the mess from the 1950s.

And, there certainly isn't any reason to assume that there is sufficient oversight and enforcement of existing regulations of the industry for us to be complacent enough to leave the industry to their own assumptions about the safety of their operation.

BTW, I'm a huge fan of wind energy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Yet Another Alarmist Non Story.

One can only imagine how much time you spend scouring every online source you can to find meaningless events that less than .001% of the public care about.

[bigtree]

6. right on time

I'd rather have more folks concerned enough to follow these reports and share them than folks working to dampen interest in them.

[Lorentz]

7. "The fire was in a maintenance building and not in the reactor building."

No different than a fire in any building. But hey, add in the word "nuclear" and the ignorant public goes crazy.

[bigtree]

9. there could be a concern as to whether electrical cables which control functions in the plant

. . . were affected by the fire.

And, I don't see any 'ignorant' public going 'crazy' about this. Just a few nuclear bullies working to make folks feel foolish for asking questions.

[Lorentz]

11. The concern is only in your head.

And you're right: there's no ignorant public going crazy at this story. Only you, looking for problems where there aren't any.

[bigtree]

13. I hope folks continue looking

. . . and push past the nuclear bullies who are so afraid of questions.

[Lorentz]

17. There are useful questions to ask, and then there are useless questions.

This is not a useful question. To suggest that a fire in a utility closet in a separate building will somehow compromise the reactor, and thus draw the conclusion that nuclear power is bad, is just plain dumb.

[bigtree]

18. you just made that up. how ignorant. no one on this thread has draw a conclusion from this incident

. . . that because there was a fire, 'nuclear power is bad'.

And, it isn't just my own opinion that a fire could potentially compromise the electrical system the plant uses to power and manage the reactor. That's just common sense to inquire about that.

I have written an extensive article with the pov that nuclear power is 'bad'. But, you're really stretching here to defend nuclear power by ridiculing legitimate questions, and attempting to stifle the very debate which could possibly lead to the understanding of nuclear power that you want to portray.

Even the industry officials said in the reports that their investigation is continuing. I guess that means THEY think 'nuclear power is bad too.' :eyes:

[Lorentz]

21. So, the intent of posting this article was cautionary, and not driven by an anti-nuke stance?

You, therefore, would have also promptly posted an article that detailed a similar fire at a solar or wind-turbine plant, right? Because, you're just concerned about the fire's potential impact on the power-generating capabilities of the plant. The fact that this was a fire at a NUCLEAR generating station is secondary to your concern, right?

Please...

[bigtree]

24. if all you can do is debate motives, then you really have nothing of value to offer

What about concern for nuclear safety don't you understand? I don't want blind support of any industry. Are you really comparing the risk from solar and wind to the risks associated with nuclear power?

Please, yourself.

[DS1]

8. blah blah blah

/McCain

[bigtree]

10. McCain calls Nuclear Safety Advocates "Extreme Environmentalists"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/debate---mccain-mocks-nuc_b_135094.html


re. the op:

"You know, the other night in the debate with Senator Obama, I said his eloquence is admirable, but pay attention to his words," McCain said. "We talk about offshore drilling and he said he would quote, consider, offshore drilling. We talked about nuclear power, well it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015385.php

[ColbertWatcher]

12. "there should be NO fires or explosions in a nuke plant" Much less 2 fires ...

... around nuclear materials ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4342293&mesg_id=4342293

[bigtree]

14. there has been an effort to develop comprehensive oversight of these fire incidents

here's a good article from July: http://www.borderfirereport.net/jim-kouri/nuclear-safety-improving-fire-protection-at-nuclear-plants.html


Nuclear Safety: Improving Fire Protection at Nuclear Plants

Monday, 07 July 2008

After a 1975 fire at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama threatened the unit's ability to shut down Jim Kourisafely, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued fire safety rules for commercial nuclear units.

However, nuclear units with different designs and different ages have had difficulty meeting these rules and several have sought exemptions to them. In 2004, NRC began to encourage the nation's 104 nuclear units to transition to a less prescriptive, risk-informed approach that will analyze the fire risks of individual nuclear units.

In addition, the US Congress directed an examination of the number and causes of fire incidents at nuclear units since 1995; compliance with NRC fire safety regulations; and the transition to the new approach.

Analysts from the General Accountability Office visited 10 of the 65 nuclear sites nationwide, reviewed NRC reports and related documentation about fire events at nuclear units, and interviewed NRC and industry officials to examine compliance with existing fire protection rules and the transition to the new approach.

According to NRC, all 125 fires at 54 of the nation's 65 nuclear sites from January 1995 through December 2007 were classified as being of limited safety significance. According to NRC, many of these fires were in areas that do not affect shutdown operations or occurred during refueling outages, when nuclear units are already shut down.

NRC's characterization of the location, significance, and circumstances of those fire events was consistent with records analysts reviewed and statements of utility and industry officials GAO contacted. NRC has not resolved several long-standing issues that affect the nuclear industry's compliance with existing NRC fire regulations, and NRC lacks a comprehensive database on the status of compliance.

These long-standing issues include nuclear units' reliance on manual actions by unit workers to ensure fire safety (for example, a unit worker manually turns a valve to operate a water pump) rather than "passive" measures, such as fire barriers and automatic fire detection and suppression.

Also, workers' use of "interim compensatory measures" (primarily fire watches) to ensure fire safety for extended periods of time, rather than making repairs. There is also uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of fire wraps used to protect electrical cables necessary for the safe shutdown of a nuclear unit.

Compounding these issues is that NRC has no centralized database on the use of exemptions from regulations, manual actions, or compensatory measures used for long periods of time that would facilitate the study of compliance trends or help NRC's field inspectors in examining unit compliance. Primarily to simplify units' complex licensing, NRC is encouraging nuclear units to transition to a risk-informed approach.


read more: http://www.borderfirereport.net/jim-kouri/nuclear-safety-improving-fire-protection-at-nuclear-plants.html

[ensho]

15. thank you for this info

nt

[Pavulon]

16. OMG

did it meltdown, all china syndrome like??

Until there is a working solution this is the best way to generate power on an industrial scale.

Deal with it.

[bigtree]

19. Nuclear power accounts for about 20% of our energy needs

That percentage could easily be made up by other alternatives, over time. I look forward to that day. Deal with that.

[Pavulon]

20. Name one that can put 400mw

put on a calm nignt? No, thats because there is not one. Second shift is a problem then. Need a shitload of batteries to store all that plus you would have to generate twice all the load during peak operation.

Nukes should cover 100 percent of the grid, plus the demand for plug in hybrids.

None of the others are even CLOSE to the capability of the reactor.

Oh yeah, my time line is six years. You could spin up 30 AP1000 reactors and staff them while someone works the bugs out of an alternative. Phase out coal.

[bigtree]

23. a combination. try some honesty.

[Pavulon]

25. at night with no wind?

no really I have looked. Cant find one. Other than space mirrors and other crazyness there is nothing right now that covers the need.

Coal and nukes.

[bigtree]

26. you aren't accounting for the build up of energy that wind and solar provide

That energy can be generated in windy areas, stored and transported around the country or to different parts of the state. It's just not credible to say that nuclear is the only reasonable or sustainable alternative to provide the fraction of energy they provide.

[Pavulon]

27. Tell me how to store 400MW/hr

and I will never mention nukes again...

I will save you the trouble. There is not battery that big. You can not store energy in quantity that is significant to the grid.

Figure that out and you will buy and sell Bill Gates.

[bigtree]

28. There are folks working on storage. You know that.

To me, the issue of sustainability of alternatives can be solved by investment on the scale we subsidize the nuclear and oil industry. Invest in these and you'll meet a sustainable target, at a cheaper price and without the obvious risks inherent in reliance on nuclear power.

[plaintiff]

22. Our fire station burned down last year.

Shit happens.