Talk:Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / Nebraska (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska.

Interesting Link re: Flood Rumors[edit]

Hi, the website provides Informations on rumors surrounding the flooding. Maybe it's includeable? I don't know where, however. -- (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC) this too.Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The FAA has shut down aircraft traffic over Fort Calhoun. LINK I think its reasonable to wonder, within the context of that Pakistani media report, just why it is they would need to do that, if there wasn't something relatively serious occurring. The FAA flight restriction seems to fit rather well with the disturbing narrative provided by that (English language) Pakistani link directly above. Food for thought, in any event. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

'I spoke by phone with Mike Jones, a spokesman for the plant. He told me that due to the rising flood waters, a lot of planes and news helicopters were flying over the reactor and some were coming in quite low.
The plant manager told the FAA he was concerned they might collide with power lines or each other. This is the reason the FAA issued a Notice to Airmen banning over-flights of the reactor. The NRC says this isn’t a an issue regarding the potential release of radiation.
Here’s what the NRC’s spokesman said about it
“After last week’s Alert, and with all the interest in flooding on the Missouri, news helicopters began flying near the plant. We understand that the plant owner contacted the FAA and asked them to remind pilots of the basic NOTAM is still in effect. As far as we can tell that had zero to do with the plant operations and everything to do with assisting in flood relief.”'
'Elizabeth Ishan Cory, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said the flight restrictions at Fort Calhoun are intended to keep curiosity seekers out of the immediate vicinity. Planes can still fly near the plant if they have flight plans and are in contact with air traffic controllers. Smaller aircraft are restricted in how close they can get to the plant.
Otherwise, there's a risk of midair collisions that could jeopardize operations on the ground.
“When you keep the area above the ground safe, you're going to keep the people on the ground safe, too,” Cory said.';twitter
—WWoods (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
More on those routine precautions. .... But that's not all. A US reactor in Nebraska is set to go scuba diving. That's right. The Fort Calhoun nuclear plant is now an island. Earlier last week a fire ignited at a spent fuel pool and knocked out the cooling system!

If the pool or reactor cooling systems are disabled, Nebraska can expect the Fukushima scenario. After all, these ticking time bombs require constant cooling. That's what makes atomic reactors so inherently dangerous and unstable over the long haul. It wouldn't be an easy job restoring electrical equipment -- underwater.

But it's a two-fer! A second Nebraska nuke plant declared an "unusual event" as floodwaters approach. At the Cooper Nuclear Station in Brownville, NE:

Personnel have been proactive in preparing the station for flood conditions by filling sandbags, constructing barricades, procuring materials and supplies, and reinforcing the access road...( Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The OPPD and local news outlets are not reliable, unbiased sources. A local pilot said on "coast to coast" radio that he has never heard of a flight restriction such as this one (2 miles around and 36k feet high). Even the news was not allowed to take pictures or video of the flooding near the plant. Obviously there is something they don't want seen, much like with BP controlling the beaches during the oil disaster.

Also, the Pakistan news source cannot be trusted - if you follow the link you will eventually find the source is Sorcha Faal - who reportedly cites Russian officials, but actually has no link to them at all. This same source has tried to get doomsday scenarios to circulate on the web in the past. petrarchan47Tc 04:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a contrary view Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Yeah, this flight restriction is unheard of. I mean really, it's never been done before! This is all a pack of lies!. And the news blackout?!?!? It's real, REAL I tell you! All 570 news items in the last day on this power plant are a fake plant by the gubbmint out to cover up the blackout with fake news stories! Don't believe! Don't be a sheeple! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Man, you are good! doubt the fantasy is more interesting than the facts for many...if the plant got to the point where a real disaster was going to happen, it would be in the media quicker than lightning.--MONGO 02:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Flight restriction is real per FAA site[edit]

There's a lot of noise in the discussion above and I can't sort through garbage and truth. Per the FAA site the flight restriction is real. The FAA's fight restrictions list is here Americasroof (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Brownville also has a restriction Americasroof (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I heard that the restriction is to prevent gawkers from flying too close and hitting each other or crashing into the plant. The FAA does post flight restrictions all the time...the Garrison Dam has a 3 nautical mile flight restriction due to "hazards", and thats greater than the one for Fort Calhoun and there is no nuclear power plant shown at this link.--MONGO 02:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's more Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • More...what? Uneducated clap trap from someone who isn't a nuclear engineer, operator, anything. No, he's a filmmaker and author who's reading way too far into some news reports without having any real understanding. This is hardly a neutral source, much less a well informed one. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What are your qualifications? Here's more Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Since I am not source for the article, my qualifications are irrelevant. Are you prepared to defend the neutrality and knowledge level of these 'sources' you are citing? For your information, the 10 mile evacuation zone that is on this most recent web page you note has been in existence for more than 30 years. Breaking news, that. Also, we don't use blogs as reliable sources. Got something else? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
10 miles would place it cleanly in the suburbs of Omaha. Do you really think that could be kept quiet? Plus there was a media frenzy on Monday with the NRC head there. Do you think they would all be quiet?Americasroof (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Since you used the term clap trap I asked for your qualifications. This is not unreasonable. Do you have a conflict of interest?Keith-264 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As I noted, my qualifications are irrelevant as I am not a cited source for this article. Now, if you want to use either of the cites you have proposed here, are you prepared to defend the neutrality and knowledge level of these 'sources' you are citing? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As you can see I make no claims for the items I have posted here on the discussion page. Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Keith-264 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Then why post the cites you are noting? What relevance to the development of the article do they have? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a conflict of interest?Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you please instruct us all why that has any relevance to the cites you are making and the development of this article? Besides, whether I say yes or no really has no impact. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a simple question. You took it on yourself to sneer at other peoples' credentials ("uneducated claptrap"). Come on, out with it. Keith-264 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • And as I've said, my credentials have nothing to do with the development of the article. But, since it matters so much to you, no I do not have a conflict of interest. There. Happy? I'm going to guess not. My guess is that you don't believe me. Am I correct? You are citing questionable sources. Are you going to defend them? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. Do you know what the discussion page is for?Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Discussing conspiracy theories? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Levee blown up[edit]

I have researched as much as I can and I don't see how the levee being blown up 10 miles downriver from this facility has had any impact. None has been reported and though that information is appropriate for the 2011 Missouri River floods article, it seems extremely peripheral to this one...I'm inclined to remove that paragraph from the Events section, but wanted to mention it here for review first.--MONGO 19:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda o.k. with that. I initially saw it in a feed from one of the nuke rumor sites. The levee breach was above the reactor on the Iowa side which apparently made that side much more dramatic (and temporarily closed the Blair Bridge). The blown up levee was below. The big impact on the reactor with any levee break that close above stream is that it significantly reduced the river water level running by diverting it. The USGS site which I initially quoted showing a six foot rise downstream really sucks. I will stick with the official NOAA weather sites. The blown up levee did pack a wallop to Omaha. Thanks for your diligence and polite request.Americasroof (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Lets leave it there for now...the impacts may change over the next week. NOAA and the other river gauges sometimes don't match for some reason...perhaps they're looking at different gauges...I think the NOAA gauge in Omaha before the levee was blown up was around 35.8 ft and this morning it was 36.2 feet but some of that may be the increase in Gavin's Point and bottlenecking since the water has fewer places to go as it comes downstream and is hemmed in by the north Omaha and north Council Bluffs that point all the river can do is rise.--MONGO 22:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Leaving it is probably the best strategy for now. The levee story is developing legs in certain circles. It's better to have it explained. Americasroof (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Have there been any reports from inside the complex?[edit]

Is anybody aware of any story of a news media or elected official actually going inside the complex? All I've seen are fly bys and commentary outside the gates. In my searches I have not seen any report or photos from inside. Nuke officials keep assuring that everything is o.k. It's a curious omission. If a third party has in fact been inside the complex we probably need to mention it. Americasroof (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe I have seen any news reports from 3rd party source from inside the complex. That in isn't itself too surprising since such an event would need ot be cleared by the Dept of Homeland Security, the NRC and OPPD...all major hurdles.--MONGO 04:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


I think its time to pare this section down to a brief paragraph. The flooding was notable, but considering the dominance this section has in the article and how in retrospect the flood had no impact on the plant, it needs trimming. WeldNeck (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the flooding and shutdown was a huge event. It will always be a huge event, no matter how far in the past. petrarchan47tc 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A huge enough event to occupy over half the article? WeldNeck (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Page number on citation?[edit]

A passage in the section "Post-flood inspections" offers the comments for the 2013-01-17 OPPD Board meeting as a source for, among other things, a direct quotation. The link leads to a PDF file 36 pages long, for which a text search doesn't work. Could I ask the inserting editor to add a page number? The document doesn't have numbers on the pages, but if you'll add "p. 17 of the PDF file" or the like, that'll greatly facilitate verification of the statements in the article. I've commented out the citation and replaced it with a citation-needed tag as a placeholder. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ammodramus. The thing is, we can't refer to primary source documents without a secondary source talking about it. That is why to add the PDF of the meeting, I had to quote RS referencing it, which I did via Gunderson. The primary source doc is added for those who want to peruse it but is not meant to singularly support the claim, as that would violate WP:RS. Gundersen's statement about what was said during the meeting is sufficient for the claim I have added, as far as guidelines are concerned. petrarchan47tc 23:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Close Paraphrasing in Article[edit]

Source[1]says: "David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the nonprofit group Union of Concerned Scientists, says the utility should have caught the structural problems much earlier and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission might have uncovered them had they conducted more than just spot checks before renewing Fort Calhoun's operating license in 2003." Article says: "David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for Union of Concerned Scientists, said the structural problems should have been caught much earlier, and that if the NRC conducted 'more than just spot checks', it might have uncovered them in 2003."

Source[2] says: "Omaha Public Power District employees were working on the plant's generator about noon Monday when the turbine cooling system began losing water, according to an event report filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This tripped an automatic failsafe system that shut down the turbines, then the reactor." Article says: "In mid-March of 2014, during maintenance work on the plant's generator, the turbine cooling system began losing water, prompting the automatic failsafe system to shut down the turbines, then the reactor, according to a report filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

Source[3] says: "The NRC said the station had suffered a fire on June 7, 2011, that qualified as a "red" event, signifying a high-level threat to the plant's operations." Article says: "A fire caused electricity to shut off in the spent fuel pools resulting in 90 minutes without cooling qualifying as a "red event", signifying a high-level threat to Fort Calhoun operations."

Geogene (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)