So, how will the South Texas Nuclear Project handle Rita?

[Ilsa]

It looks to me like the hurricane is headed straight for the STNP.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. What do they do over there?

[Ilsa]

2. It's a nuclear powerplant. Supplies South Texas,

Austin, Corpus Christi, etc. IIRC.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Hmmm. I wouldn't think it was made to withstand a cat 4 or 5 hurricane

[maine_raptor]

3. STNP Prepardness Web Page

http://www.stpnoc.com/preparedness.htm


And the local hosiptal knows how to get there!!

[seabeyond]

4. if the very worst happened. what would happen?

[phantom power]

6. they shut down the reactors prior to landfall.

Those facilities are built like bunkers, but even if it took damage, nothing will happen as long as it's shut down.

[seabeyond]

8. thanks. we have pantex up here

nice to know they are so down in the ground, they cant be easily gotten. i just like to know what is up. not like there is a lot of trust right now

[Ilsa]

19. Pahnhandle? Amarillo?

My uncle retired from PanTex, I think.

[seabeyond]

22. ya

[MadHound]

5. They'll do what any other nuclear reactor does during disasters

Shut down the reactor, may or may not remove the fuel for safekeeping, batten down the hatches, make sure they have plenty of diesel for their emergency generator, and have a skeleton crew batten down all the hatches and ride out the storm.

Given the specs that nuclear reactors are built to, I'm pretty certain that the reactor will survive. While the cooling towers and surrounding office structure might suffer some damage, the core will survive intact and unharmed, and it is highly unlikely that any radiation will be released. In fact one of the safest places to ride out such a storm will be in the control room of a reactor.

That said, if the cooling towers or surrounding office struture is destroyed, it will probably be awhile before the reactor goes back online. But I can almost guarantee you that there will be no radiation leak, or radioactive damage done. Those reacotrs are just too damn strong.

[maine_raptor]

9. And built by lowest contract bidders , too

The integrity of a containment building has NEVER been tested before against the Actual forces Mother Nature can throw it. Lets hope both the engineers calculations and the quality control were up to snuff.:scared:

[MadHound]

10. Actually you're wrong friend.

Nuclear reactors aren't neccessarily built by the lowest bidding contractors. Since a reactor is such a potentially disastorous building, lots of leeway was given in the bidding and building contracts to emphasize quality of the building over the cost. In addition, nuclear reactors are situated on the land in order to allieviate the worst effects of a storm

And nuclear reactors have gone through massive disasters before just fine. There have been reactors that have had a direct hit by tornadoes, that have been through floods, fire and hurricans. In fact, Turkey Point took a direct hit from Hurrican Andrew, and while there was millions and millions of dollars worth of damage done to the office structures, the containment building and core were unscathed.

Look, we all understandably like to dump on nuke plants, but give the people some credit. They know what their working with, and they don't want to see a disaster occur just as much or more than you don't.

[maine_raptor]

11. I know that they do not want something to happen, but

until an object is actually tested, no matter something as simple as a snow fence or as complex as a nuclear reactor, by the Forces of Nature, it remains an unknown factor.

In other words; just because Turkey Point survived, it does not necessarily follow that STNP will.

[MadHound]

13. Look you can Chicken Little all you want, but that doesn't change the fact

That nuclear reactors are built to take a huge beating. Models, tests, real life strikes have all borne this out. Reactors have time and again take direct hits from tornadoes, which, in the small space a tornadoe touches, are more deadly than a hurricane. You can plant a good size bomb on the outside of the containment building, and barely feel it inside when it goes off.

Containment buildings are surrounded by not one, but two heavily re-enforced walls that are upwards of three feet thick. Poured around not just rebar, but structural steel I beams, the containment building is not only meant to keep the weather out, but the reaction in, in the worst case scenario.

But as I said, you can Chicken Little all you want, and flee far far away. But me, I would be headed for the reactor to see if I could persuade them to let me ride the storm out with them. I know I'll survive there.

[maine_raptor]

14. Its NOT "Chicken Little" to simply say "time will tell".

What Man makes, Nature can unmake. History is replete with examples.

[MadHound]

17. Yes, you are being a Chicken Little friend

Whether you deny it or no. You're worried about a containment building, built to specs that have withstood the forces of nature time and again(and remember, Hurricane Andrew was a Cat 5), building materials that have been tested again and again, a structure that is constantly inspected, that is built to withstand forces that are above and beyond the worst that nature can throw at it, yet you are still yelling that the sky is going to fall. Whatever. I'm willing to bet you dollars to doughnuts that there is no breach of containment at the reactor in question, how about you?

And as I said, you can flee if you want, but me, I'd be running towards the reactor, for I know it will withstand the storm easily. Yes, Nature can unmake all that is made by man, but in many many cases it takes Nature a long while to do so, not a sudden, all at once. A nuclear containment building is just one of those structures. It will be undone with time, not all at once.

[maine_raptor]

18. Actually I would take that bet, MadHound.

Having some, believe it or not, working knowledge of quality control at nuclear reactors (does the place name West Milton, NY mean anything to you?), I do agree that the control room of a nuke would be one of many shelters from the storm.

However, I have read and lived too much history to ignore the potential of what nature can do to man's works.

I would rather wait until after the event occurs rather than rely solely upon the past calculations and past alertness of others.

[MrBenchley]

23. And remember, the span of time

over which the reactor must be maintained is roughly 100,000 years....give or take a century or two.

[MadHound]

25. And remember how long these reactors have actually been around

Fifty five years tops. Also remember that there has never ever been one single leak from the containment building in any of the reactors that have gone through any natural disaster.

Stop spreading fear and hysteria until you know what you're talking about, OK. There are plenty of real worries that the people in the region need to deal with. It doesn't help when a clueless pundit on an anonymous message board starts spreading baseless hysteria for no other reason than their blind hatred of the nuclear industry.

[maine_raptor]

26. Now THAT I highly resent. MadHound

" It doesn't help when a clueless pundit on an anonymous message board starts spreading baseless hysteria for no other reason than their blind hatred of the nuclear industry."

Nowhere, in no one part of a sentence in my posts in this matter, can you or anybody else, find a scintilla of "baseless hysteria" and "blind hatred of the nuclear industry".

All I have said, and I repeat it again, Sir, is that every time Man thinks he has "conquered Mother Nature", Mother Nature makes Man think again.

I happen to think that nuclear power is a good thing for this country and mankind, provided that 1) the waste problem from fission plants can be solved, and 2) fission power is perfected as a replacement.

I demand an apology, Sir.

[MadHound]

27. Do you work in the nuclear industry?

Have you ever once in your life seen the design specs for a containment building? Do you have any clue as to the forces that they can withstand? Have you even been inside a reactor or containment building? If not(and this is amply indicated by your posts on the matter) then yes indeed, you are clueless.

As far as spreading baseless hysteria goes, well sorry friend, I call them as I see them. Screaming about how containment is going to spring a leak, and then offering some other completely different leak as an example, generalizing it to all nuclear structures is indeed baseless hysteria, and from the tone of your posts it does indeed seem that you have a blind hatred of the nuclear industry. If that strikes you as being too harsh, so be it, I call them as I see them.

I work in a nuclear reactor friend, I know what these buildings are designed to withstand. I what the problems are, and I know what they aren't. I've visited and am intimately familiar with a number of nuclear reactors around the country, and I see the work and sheer scale of their construction, and know, without a doubt, what they can withstand. And I highly resent when somebody who has only a layman's knowledge, inflated by the anti-nuke hysteria, trying to tell the world that a nuke plant is going to go because of a hurricane.

Tell you what friend, go out, take the classes, visit a number of plants, look at the specs, the design, the sheer numbers that go into the contruction of a nuclear facility, and then see if your opinion is still valid. I think you with find, as I already know, that you don't have a leg to stand on. If that sounds harsh to you, I'm sorry, but I find layfolk expounding on the nuclear industry about as frustrating as a doctor finding a layperson doing surgery does. It is outrageous, quite frankly, and I wish it would stop. There are plenty of real problems with nuclear power, you don't need to make them up to scare people.

[maine_raptor]

28. Obviously, you do not know of West Milton NY, Sir.

Maybe the largest concert ration of nuclear reactors on the East Coast. Full-scale working mock-up of the different types of the US Navy's nuke power plants for carriers, subs, etc. Each reactor sat inside what can best be described as a section of that ship, within a containment building (ship portion & reactor) for each type and used to train Navy personnel on nuke operations. At the time I worked there it facility housed 7 or 8 different reactors of various sizes.

For a number of years I worked within the QC (Quality Control) portion of that setup. I have personally inspected welds and materials that went into those training vessels. I worked on the development of the early computerization of West Milton's QC records and controls.

Now if you would be so kind as to LOOK at who posted that note about that "leak", you WILL NOT find my name, SIR!!!!!

I know what containment vessels are built to withstand, and once again for the last time, so you can understand what I am saying:

UNTIL THE TEST IS PASSED, WE CANNOT KNOW IF IT WILL PASS IT.

That is true of everything, and something you learn in working QC.

That is all, no wild-eyed anti-nuke hysteria, just plain common sense from someone who has the T-shirt.

[MadHound]

29. My bad then, but then again

Why are you taking such offense at a comment not directed towards you?

And considering that time and again, in reactors around the country, each and every single one has withstood every single disaster that nature threw at them, and are still standing, and functioning to this day. I think that such a track record would be reasonably interpreted to mean that yes indeed, they have passed the test. But then again, since you worked in QC, you should know that.

[maine_raptor]

30. Ok

I appeared that it was directed at me, but let's leave that aside for now.

Yes, I would reasonably expect a nuke plant to survive. But I also know that time and time again cases have been found where shoddy workmanship or poor QC has allowed things to slip thru the proverbial crack.

Murphy only has to be right once, and Mother Nature is on Murphy's side more often than not.

[MrBenchley]

31. Wow, that's 0.06% of their needed life...

"Also remember that there has never ever been one single leak from the containment building in any of the reactors that have gone through any natural disaster"
And only a few leaks form the reactors that haven't gone through one....

"Stop spreading fear and hysteria until you know what you're talking about, OK. "
I know what I'm talking about....

[MadHound]

32. Sure you do, just keep telling yourself that

Have you ever been in a nuclear reactor, much less worked in the nuclear industry? Have you ever seen the plans for a containment building, the specs that they're built to, ridden out a tornadoe in one? Somehow I doubt it. After all, you are the person on this thread who is comparing the construction of a storage pool to the structure of a containment building, and declaring them equal.

So tell me friend, what exactly qualifies you to speak knowledgably on this subject, and staying at a Holiday Inn last night certainly doesn't qualify.

[MrBenchley]

34. That Is rich....

"After all, you are the person on this thread who is comparing the construction of a storage pool to the structure of a containment building"
And you are the one pretending that the people who are too reckless and incompetent to build a pool ought to be trusted when they built something else that was much more complicated, expensive, and dangerous.

"what exactly qualifies you to speak knowledgably on this subject"
For one thing, I've been watching the nuclear industry lie to the public for most of my lifetime.

[MadHound]

36. LOL, again you are showing your ignorance of this topic friend

The people who build the containment buildings, the guidelines that they follow, the QC that it is all subject to are completely different than what happens when you build a storage pool, thus your point of comparison is moot. Different structure, different subcontractors, different guidelines, get the picture.

And this is spoken like a true poseur friend "For one thing, I've been watching the nuclear industry lie to the public for most of my lifetime." IE you are going to believe every single hysterical report that comes your way. Don't try to deny it friend, for I know the score, I've been in your shoes(and in fact I still am) Got arrested protesting nuke plants a quarter century ago. And I still think that they are the wrong answer to our energy problems for two very good reasons, human error and no suitable solution for the waste products.

However, working in the nuclear industry(I work at a small research reactor that produces radiopharmaceuticals, contact me if you ever need a cancer treatment), I've come to see that much of the anti nuke's case is simply built on hysteria and NIMBYism. And that's really quite sad, when there are perfectly sound, sensible reasons to oppose nuclear energy.

I would suggest that you go do some research, dare to get to know that which you fear. It will make your case all that much stronger, and will keep people from disregarding you as simply another hysterical protestor who doesn't know what they're talking about. Knowledge is always a good thing, I suggest you get some in this area.

[MrBenchley]

37. Like I said, your posts grow ever more hysterical....

"I've come to see that much of the anti nuke's case is simply built on hysteria and NIMBYism"
Says the guy frantically trying to pretend that we ought to trust that people who can't build a pool can build a nuclear containment building that will last 100,000 years.

"I've been in your shoes(and in fact I still am)"
Yeah, it shows (snicker)...

[MadHound]

39. Well, as I predicted, you have no credentials in this area

And thus can't speak knowledgebly about the subject. You know, hysteria and ignorance concerning the topic you're being hysterical about do not make a good combination.

I've asked you to provide even one example of a containment building failing during a natural disaster. You haven't, nor can you. I've asked for you to provide any examples of your expertise in this subject matter, you haven't.

This is why I despise people like you in the anti-nuke movement. While your heart is in the right place, you haven't educated yourself on the issues involved, the problems that are occurring, and the very real dangers posed by the nuclear industry. Nor can you point to the positives in the nuclear industry either. Instead, you launch knee-jerk, uneducated screeds of hysterical ramblings that make all of us in the antinuke movement look stupid.

If you wish to do the anti-nuke movement some good, please, please educate yourself, and think before you speak. Otherwise the opposition will pounce on your ignorance and use it to smear the entire movement.

And you can believe me or not concerning my anti-nuke movement, but I know that my local paper has a picture of me, and many other good friends, behind bars for an act of civil disobiedience while protesting nukes. It was on the front page friend. What are your creds, other than anonymous chat board screeds?

[hunter]

42. Hey, you guys should come down to Environment and Energy!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115

You'd feel right at home. :popcorn:

[MadHound]

46. LOL, what, you need more bickering and infighting there? n/t

:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

45. Got all the credentials anyone needs, chum

"This is why I despise people like you in the anti-nuke movement."
Funny, you should hear what I think about the likes of you.

"Otherwise the opposition will pounce on your ignorance"
What opposition? The only folks pushing for nukes these days are the corrupt fuckwits at GE who build them...and of course loonies like the LaRouchers.

"I know that my local paper has a picture of me, and many other good friends, behind bars for an act of civil disobiedience while protesting nukes. It was on the front page friend."
That's so cute! Did you put it in a scrapbook with little gold stars on the cover?

[MadHound]

48. And just exactly what credentials are those?

And being a keyboard character assasian doesn't count. Credentials are something that you earn, that you work for. What arrests have you had in the cause? What initiatives have you pushed? How much time, energy and effort have you exerted in fighting against nuke plants?

And if you don't know who the opposition is(hint hint, take a look at the energy bill that just got rammed through Congress this summer), then what the fuck good are you?

And quite frankly friend, after this little exchange of ours today, I don't give a damn what you think of me. I'll just keep on doing what I do, you know, the real work of activism, and you can just keep on puttering at your keyboard. It is probably best that you're not out there anyway, you would just embarrass yourself and others associated with you.

[MrBenchley]

50. Next time get some honesty and sense...

"And if you don't know who the opposition is(hint hint, take a look at the energy bill that just got rammed through Congress this summer), then what the fuck good are you? "
I told YOU GE and the freepers are the only ones trying to push nukes...

"I'll just keep on doing what I do, you know, the real work of activism, "
Yeah, it shows (snicker)....

"you would just embarrass yourself and others associated with you"
Says the guy trying to pretend we should just trust that a corrupt industry unable to build a pool in a competent fashion built a dangerous nuclear facility that has to last through a Force 5 hurricane without fucking up because...well, just because, dammit!

[MadHound]

53. More honesty and sense here

Than somebody who is trying desperately to make up for a lack of education.

And again, I have to ask, what are your credentials? I keep asking you this, but you keep on ignoring this question. Very telling friend, very telling.

By the by, though you obviously wouldn't know it, GE and freepers aren't the only ones benefitting from the Energy Bill. What, you the great activist, doesn't even know who your opposition is? Gee, wonder why:eyes:

Look friend, it's real, it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun. I've got to go, so we'll have to postpone this fun for later. So go ahead, take your last cheap little ad hominem shot(I know you're dying to), and then we'll let this drop until a later date.

Until then, please, please, for your own good, do some reading, educate yourself in the subject that you so oppose. It will do you, and the rest of us worlds of good.

[MrBenchley]

15. Indian Point sprung a leak with no hurricane in sight

http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/348177p-297140c.html

As the Firesign Theatre once said "Nuclear Power—with us for the next 90,000 years whether we want it or not."

[MadHound]

16. Um that is rather disingenous of you friend

Comparing a small amount of water leaking from a pool located on the OUTSIDE of the containment building, to having a breach in the containment building itself.

Try giving a much more relavent example next time, OK.

[MrBenchley]

21. Not hardly, chief...

"Comparing a small amount of water leaking from a pool located on the OUTSIDE of the containment building, to having a breach in the containment building itself. "
Yeah, clearly people who can't maintain a pool ought to be trusted...

[MadHound]

24. Sure it is, you are comparing apples and oranges here

Or more specifically the specs for a pool design versus the specs for a containment building. I've seen both, and the specs for a containment building are designed to withstand much much more punishment than the specs for a storage pool.

Besides, you are ignoring a whole boatload of reports on how many different containment buildings have weathered many types of natural disasters. There are many many such buildings that have gone through tornadoes, floods and hurricanes, and every single one of them have withstood the blow just fine.

But hey, if you wish to react with blind panic, I can't stop you. But I find it rather sad the amount of BS that is bantied about by people who have no clue, yet it is perceived as gospel truth, while those of us in the know, who should know, have their word entirely disregarded. Way to spread needless fear and hysteria.

[MrBenchley]

33. So we should trust the people who okayed substandard specs for a pool

didn't when they built the more expensive project...

"you are ignoring a whole boatload of reports on how many different containment buildings have weathered many types of natural disasters"
Hey, you can keep pulling the trigger while playing Russian roulette and win for a short while, too...

"I find it rather sad the amount of BS that is bantied about by people who have no clue, yet it is perceived as gospel truth"
I find it even sadder that somebody would trust the fuckwits who gave us Three Mile Island "just because"....

Let's hope they kept this facility up better than FirstEnergy kept their's...because we know the Republican regulators who were supposed to be watching in Texas haven't done anything but look the other way and pocket bribes.

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/nucfront.html

http://www.freepress.org/doit.php?strFunc=display&strID=147&strYear=2004

[MadHound]

35. Once again, you're comparing apples and oranges

You are comparing human/operator errors to structual integrity. Can you provide any links, sources examples where a natural disaster breached a containment building?

No, you cannot. The only thing that you will find is how HUMAN ERROR endangered the surrounding population. In fact it was the structural integrity at the site of this country's worst nuclear fuck-up, Three Mile Island, that kept the consequences of HUMAN ERROR from being even more disastorous.

Please, don't compare anymore apples to oranges OK. It makes you look foolish.

[MrBenchley]

38. Too too funny....

"The only thing that you will find is how HUMAN ERROR endangered the surrounding population."
Good thing there's no chance of human error in how this reactor was built...oh, wait.

[MadHound]

40. Again, you are showing your lack of education

Concerning that which you oppose. Do you have any kind of clue how a reactor is built? How many QC checks it goes through? The inspections of material, design, and the work done? Do you really have any idea about the subject that you're opposing other than knee jerk anti-nuke diatribes?

People like you truly irritate me. Your heart is in the right place, but your lack of knowledge paints the whole movement as uneducated, and you knee jerk response tags us all as hysterical no-nothings. Please, please, before you speak to this subject in public, educate yourself. It will benefit both you and the cause that we all hold dear.

[MrBenchley]

41. Says the guy trying to pretend that 0.06% is a meaningful percentage

"People like you truly irritate me."
Ask me sometime what I think about apologists for corruption and dishonesty, why doncha?

"you knee jerk response tags us all as hysterical no-nothings"
Nuff said.

[MadHound]

44. Ooo, semi clever ad hominems attacks!

No substitute for knowledge friend.

And being a keyboard character assasian is no substitute for having real activist credentials. I suggest that you get out from behind the computer monitor and go out and actually do something productive. Like educate yourself.

[MrBenchley]

47. Like I said, your posts grow ever more hysterically funny

as they grow ever more desperate and silly.

"No substitute for knowledge friend. "
That IS rich...coming from the guy who's trying to pretend that 0.06% is a meaningful percentage.

[MadHound]

49. Not as funny as somebody who is trying to be clever

When they don't have the knowledge or expertise in the subject they're speaking about.

[MrBenchley]

51. I know 0.06% is meaningless

and that the nuclear industry is both corrupt and slipshod...and I've demonstrated both quite aptly.

[MadHound]

54. Well, you're correct in one thing

The nuclear industry, like almost any other industry, has its fair share of corruption.

However, now that I've strung your happy ass along all day, let me break the news to you now.

Nuclear containment buildings never, ever have been designed to last 100,000 years. Go look it up.

That is why old reactors are stripped of fuel, decomtaminated, torn down and whatever left that is hot is classified as nuclear waste and now being stored around the country, soon to be shipped to Yucca Mt(which is a stupid place to put our nuclear waste, do you know why?).

But hey, it was fun watching you just go merrily down the primrose path.

Cheers!

[MrBenchley]

55. No shit, sherlock....

"Nuclear containment buildings never, ever have been designed to last 100,000 years. Go look it up."
Gee, you mean you think anyone has to look that up?

"soon to be shipped to Yucca Mt(which is a stupid place to put our nuclear waste, do you know why?)."
Of course. Besides the FACT that the repository is near an active volcano, is prone to earthquakes, and sits on an aquifer that serves three states, the waste has to be trucked or sent by rail through residential areas to get there. And the taxpayrer is getting stuck with the liability for the shipment and the next 99.994% of the storage costs.

"it was fun watching you just go merrily down the primrose path"
Not nearly as many laughs as watching you be "anti-nuke"...compared to you Alan Colmes is another Stokely Carmichael...

[Ilsa]

20. Thanks, Madhound. I feel better. I had heard it could withstand

200mph winds, but i bet it's better than that. I really do feel better, but I thought it was a question worth asking.

Wish us luck. I'm having a hard time finding a hotel to evac to. We might head south. If it goes in far enough north of us, we'll stay put.

I'm in Victoria, which is a few dozen miles from Matagorda Bay.

[pitohui]

12. too soon to tell

waterford 3 in the new orleans area did ok from what i didn't hear

besides these storms turn

[julialnyc]

43. cnn on this

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/21/rita.nuclear/index.html

[MrBenchley]

52. "It's perfectly safe, but we're shutting it down and bugging out"

Want to bet the "essential workers" don't include any of the company's executives?

[goodboy]

56. fwiw, it's NUKULAR, dummie!! (just kiddin')