Skip to main content

Comments on Arkansas Nuclear One Plant Accident

By
Our prayers go out to our colleagues at Arkansas Nuclear One where an industrial accident claimed the life of one worker and injured eight others. The accident occurred yesterday morning at approximately 7:45 a.m. when a generator stator fell as it was being moved out of the turbine building. There was no radiological release and no impact on public health and safety.

We are greatly saddened by this loss, and offer our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of the employee who lost his life.

The nuclear industry is a close community, and we ask that you please keep our friends at Arkansas Nuclear One in your thoughts today. 
Labels:

Comments

jimwg said…
My heart and sympathies go out to the families concerned. Unfortunately, this non-nuclear accident is already making the rounds of (anti Indian Point) NYC-metro TV stations as a heart-stopping "nuclear plant accident", with very brief situation mention that a workman was "crushed" or "was struck" by a piece of equipment, leaving it to the jittery public's imagination as to what; i.e.. in a nuclear plant, what else could be the well-known dangerous cause of a "nuclear plant accident" than the reactor? It doesn't help when the facility shuts down a perfectly running unit as a "safety procedure" -- but the media asks/baits a wondering public, would a gas or oil or coal facility shut down a running unit from a "totally uninvolved" incident as this? Most all likely not. NRC rules or auto-triggered systems or not, the seeming illogical purpose of the running-plant shutdown (as pre-assumed by antis) could only generate more puzzlement and FUD and a harder hill for nuclear acceptance to climb, especially with no nuclear advocacy voices clearly explaining the situation in the media or YouTube. This is the time for mourning and immediately after a time to aggressively mobilize an adult public education nuclear energy campaign on TV and YouTube to counter the media and antis who are surely -- disappointed by Fukushima's deathless outcome -- going to strike FUD in the hearts of the public while the iron is red-hot.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
April 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM
Anonymous said…
ANO's online unit scrammed automatically due to damage to a switchgear caused by the fallen stator.
April 2, 2013 at 8:06 PM
Anonymous said…
This is an industrial safety accident and has nothing to do with the nuclear side of the plant. The same sort of accident could happen at a coal or nautral gas fired power plant or any other heavy industrial facitlity. The nuclear industry has a VERY good safety record, but accidents do happen. That said, having worked at nuclear sites before, I can tell you the biggest killer by far is stress. I have heard of far more fatalities at nuclear plants caused by heart attacks than everything else combined.
April 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Anonymous said…
I work at ANO, but before my career brought me here, I contracted. I have worked in nuclear plants around the world, as well as hydro and fossil plants. If this same event would have taken place in a fossil or hydro plant, I believe far more people would have been injured. My prayers go out to the family and friends of the young man that lost his life. And as with any challenges that the nuclear industry faces, the lessons that we learn from this will be implemented throughout the nuclear industry.
April 6, 2013 at 8:12 AM
Anonymous said…
Typically the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has intentionally failed to incorporate the Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR 50 Appendix B NQA-1 (Nuclear Quality Assurance) Program requirements into the licensing of Nuclear Power Plants across this country. This omission knowingly allows the safety of the plant to be subjective to an operations driven management structure. i.e. One of the primary functions of Nuclear Quality is the audit verification of items relied on for safety (IROFS) separate from operations e.g. Crane Load Tests before performing heavy lifts. Since the management structure has the VP of Operation and the Nuclear Safety Officer as one and the same person, this operation/safety conflict of interest has ultimately lead to this fatal accident and the NRC is ultimately the cause of this felony reckless endangerment.

May 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more