Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant - Flooding Issues

[mcgowanmc]

The contract will require that the Contractor sandblast and paint all steel corroded members of the spillway bridge and possibly perform welding where the steel supports has delaminated at the connections as noted on the drawings. All residue collected from the sandblasting operation will need to be captured since there was lead based paint applied to the original surface

![/QUOTE]

And That's the second time in Two Days that I've read the word
'Delaminated'.

The First pertained to Ft Calhoun (or Cooper) in relation
to either concrete or steel.
That the concrete or steel was getting brittle thru
radiation.
That they weren't so much 'cracking' as they were
...wait for it...Delaminating....

[mcgowanmc]

[QUOTE=Curious;296809]
The next two weeks are critical with hot weather finally hitting the mountains which will spur large a snow melt. "IF" rain is scarce as the snow melts the release rates "may" be able to be held steady. On the other hand if more serious rain events occure in the upper watershed (Fort Peck and Garrison) during this time then outflow levels will most likely have to be increased further.

I would not be surprised to see Fort Garrison output to have to eventually be raised, possibly substantially.

Garrison can not increase output. The Levees now have to be intentionally breached. Think Bird's Point FusePlug.
I bet the MO River has a Fuse Plug somewhere on that
70 year old Project Design Flood Map.

Not to mention the Rail Road Bridges are in trouble...

[Curious]

Missouri River Dam flow information for June 24, 2011
(preceeding 24 hour period)

Fort Peck........: Inflow 43,000; Outflow 60,000; Flow held back ... N/A
Fort Garrison: Inflow 151,000; Outflow 150,000; Flow held back 1,000 +-
Oahe..............: Inflow 164,000; Outflow 150000; Flow held back 14,000+-
Big Bend ......: Inflow 165,000; Outflow 165,000; Flow held back .....-0- +-
Fort Randall..: Inflow 196,000; Outflow 138,000; Flow held back 58,000 +-
Gavins Point..: Inflow 149,000; Outflow 158,000; Flow held back ... N/A


Total Flow Held Back last 24 hours = 73,000 cf/s


Dam Reservoir storage information as of June 24 2011:

Fort Peck....: Flood Control max level ... 2250 : current level ... 2251.6 : flood storage capacity utilization 110%
Garrison......: Flood Control max level ... 1854 : current level ... 1854.4 : FC storage 103%
Oahe...........: Flood Control max level ... 1620 : current level ... 1619.4 : FC storage 94%
Big Bend......: Flood Control max level ... 1423 : current level ... 1421.4 : FC storage 47%
Fort Randal...: Flood Control max level ... 1375 : current level ... 1370.4 : FC Storage 79%
(Fort Randal pool level increase 1.3 feet over the preceeding 24 hours)
Gavins Point..: Flood Control max level ... 1210 : current level ... 1207.6 : FC Storage 53%

Watch Fort Randall closely!! Fort Randall is the only dam in the system with sizable storage capacity remaining - but it has been eating into the capacity at the rate of about 1 foot per day.

[Curious]

River Gauge near Cooper

http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydro...0,7,8,2,9,15,6


For that location they are now projecting a lower level over the next few days (levy broke just a few miles upstream overnight) ... which I am not sure I understand since once the area with the broken levy "fills up" then water should start to rise again in the river, unless that water is re-entering the river downstream several miles through another broken levy.

[mcgowanmc]

Morning Curious,

You're confusing Nuclear Plants in Danger of Flooding.
Happened to me.

Brownville is Cooper.
Blair is Calhoun.

http://water.weather.gov/resources/h...s/mrpn1_hg.png

[Curious]

Originally Posted by mcgowanmc

Morning Curious,

You're confusing Nuclear Plants in Danger of Flooding.
Happened to me.

Brownville is Cooper.
Blair is Calhoun.

http://water.weather.gov/resources/h...s/mrpn1_hg.png

You are correct and I knew that when I posted it ... I just posted the wrong name in my rush ... )-: It is now corrected

[Curious]

Some recent pictures of the Fort Calhoun plant with water up around the bladders. About 2/3 of the way down are a couple of good ground level pictures. Note also that the levy around the transmission wire farm seems to have either leaked or been overtopped flooding part of the transmission farm.

Not sure about the website but these are the best most recent pics of the plant. Alledgedly they are from June 23-24???

http://www.cartoradiations.fr/Fort_Calhoun.php

[Auburn Boy]

Originally Posted by Curious

River Gauge near Cooper

http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydro...0,7,8,2,9,15,6


For that location they are now projecting a lower level over the next few days (levy broke just a few miles upstream overnight) ... which I am not sure I understand since once the area with the broken levy "fills up" then water should start to rise again in the river, unless that water is re-entering the river downstream several miles through another broken levy.

It's a matter of the overall dynamics.

IF the river is still getting higher inflows from it's upstream watershed, THEN the break will only keep the downstream rise down UNTIL the unintended reservoir fills up (the area flooded by the breach.) ANDIF the upstream inflow continues unabated, THEN the downstream rise will resume.\

Fluid logic.

Part of our logic in building all these levys is the 100 year flood rule, you build to hold in the 100 year flood, but a 1000 year flood comes along, and your logic is no longer applicable.

I think that's what we are seeing now: a flood that is outside the bounds of the design goals..,

Not good, not good at all..,

[mcgowanmc]

Originally Posted by Curious

You are correct and I knew that when I posted it ... I just posted the wrong name in my rush ... )-: It is now corrected

Here's another from enenews comments:

BreadAndButter June 25, 2011 at 11:00 am Log in to Reply Update: by the way. The article was published on June 24th, and it says: “…Missouri River, which reached a height of nearly 1,007 feet above sea level at the plant yesterday.” “Yesterday” means 23rd of June. Since then, the levels have dropped more than 2 feet: http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydro...,1,1,1,1 ,1,1 I don’t want to downplay anything, and I’m sure levels will rise again, but…you know. * admin June 25, 2011 at 11:09 am Log in to Reply You are talking about Brownville, which is Cooper Nuclear Station… a dam broke nearby. This post is about Ft. Calhoun, where the water levels are not expected to decrease much, if at all. http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydro...,9,15,6&type=0

Port Calhoun maybe.

a dam broke nearby

and I don't think a dam broke nearby...just sayin'...

Thanx for your reply,
James

And a BTW. That's a lot of land being flooded
around Brownville that it's taking so long for the
river to start rising again.

[mcgowanmc]

At 9:21pm Thursday, a levee on the Missouri River faied 3 miles north of Brownville, Nebraska, causing flash flooding of areas near the levee failure.

Emergency Management officials are urging people in the Missouri River flood plain west of I-29 in Atchison County to evacuate to higher ground as soon as possible.

Mark Manchester, Atchison County Emergency Managment Director tells Channel 6 News there are between 200-250 homes in the evacuated area.

Locations impacted include Phelps City, Langdon and Watson.

Manchester said two board members were patrolling the levee Thursday night when it failed in two places. He said it happened so suddenly the two people weren’t sure if they would be able to get off the levee in time.

Manchester says the levee breach is about six miles upstream from the Cooper Nuclear Power Plant.

http://visionsgreen.com/2011/06/brea...nuclear-plant/

[Curious]

Missouri River Dam flow information for June 25, 2011
(preceeding 24 hour period)

Fort Peck........: Inflow 45,000; Outflow 60,000; Flow held back ..... N/A
Fort Garrison...: Inflow 153,000; Outflow 150,000; Flow held back 3,000 +-
Oahe..............: Inflow 160,000; Outflow 150,000; Flow held back 10,000+-
Big Bend ........: Inflow 155,000; Outflow 165,000; Flow held back ....N/A
Fort Randall....: Inflow 192,000; Outflow 146,000; Flow held back 46,000 +-
Gavins Point....: Inflow 146,000; Outflow 160,000; Flow held back ... N/A


Total Flow Held Back last 24 hours = 59,000 cf/s


Dam Reservoir storage information as of June 25 2011:

Fort Peck.....: Flood Control max level ... 2250 : current level ... 2251.4 : flood storage capacity utilization 110%
Garrison.......: Flood Control max level ... 1854 : current level ... 1854.5 : FC storage 103%
Oahe...........: Flood Control max level ... 1620 : current level ... 1619.3 : FC storage 94%
Big Bend.......: Flood Control max level ... 1423 : current level ... 1421.1 : FC storage 35%
Fort Randal...: Flood Control max level ... 1375 : current level ... 1371.3 : FC Storage 83%
(Fort Randal pool level increase .9 feet over the preceeding 24 hours)
Gavins Point..: Flood Control max level ... 1210 : current level ... 1206.5 : FC Storage 33%

[Curious]

Missouri River Dam flow information for June 26, 2011
(preceeding 24 hour period)

Fort Peck........: Inflow 48,000; ..Outflow 60,000; ..Flow held back ..... N/A
Fort Garrison...: Inflow 151,000; Outflow 151,000; Flow held back ..... N/A
Oahe...............: Inflow 156,000; Outflow 150,000; Flow held back ..6,000+-
Big Bend ........: Inflow 157,000; Outflow 165,000; Flow held back ......N/A
Fort Randall....: Inflow 187,000; Outflow 153,000; Flow held back .34,000 +-
Gavins Point....: Inflow 153,000; Outflow 160,000; Flow held back ..... N/A


Total Flow Held Back last 24 hours = 40,000 cf/s


Dam Reservoir storage information as of June 26 2011:

Fort Peck.....: Flood Control max level ... 2250 : current level ... 2251.3 : flood storage capacity utilization 109%
Garrison.......: Flood Control max level ... 1854 : current level ... 1854.5 : FC storage 103%
Oahe...........: Flood Control max level ... 1620 : current level ... 1619.5 : FC storage 95%
Big Bend.......: Flood Control max level ... 1423 : current level ... 1420.7 : FC storage 26%
Fort Randal...: Flood Control max level ... 1375 : current level ... 1371.9 : FC Storage 86%
(Fort Randal pool level increase .6 feet over the preceeding 24 hours)
Gavins Point..: Flood Control max level ... 1210 : current level ... 1205.9 : FC Storage 24%

-------------------------

The rains that soaked the Omaha area on Saturday heightened concerns about flooding in the region. (this is DOWNSTREAM of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant)

Parts of eastern Nebraska had up to 2.5 inches of rain, while areas of southwest Iowa received more than an inch, said Rick Chermok of the National Weather Service.

The rains fell in a six-hour period and tested Omaha’s flood control efforts along the riverfront. Storm drains overflowed and some north downtown businesses were flooded.

Authorities in Harrison County, Iowa, were dealing with a levee breach (this is about 6 miles UPSTREAM of the Fort Calhoun plant) and rising Missouri River floodwaters.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110626/NEWS01/706269890

[mcgowanmc]

That Upstream Breach threatens Missouri Valley.
A Main RR Junction, along with Pacific Junction to
the South.

US Highway 30 and therefore the bridge could close at any time.
The RR Bridge is right along side 30...

Eppley Field, Omaha's Air could be flooded at anytime.

Offutt's StratCom would then be pressed to Override it's
Mission Statement, WeverTF that is...

[mcgowanmc]

Looks like Atchison Co finally filled up...

http://water.weather.gov/resources/h...s/bron1_hg.png

[Curious]

SHEESH ... this is what I was talking about originally:

Why was the plant located at the elevation it was located at to begin with ...?

Why did they need to put up a temporary levee at all? Shouldn't they have had a permenate one constructed years ago?

Statistical risk modeling has it's place ... but changing a few basic assumptions so as to save money or arrive at a pre arranged conclusion can dramatically alter the REAL risk. Note the RR tracks behind the plant, which were laid out in the 1850's or so, BEFORE the advent of statistical risk assessment, are still high and dry!!

---------------------------------------------------

FORT CALHOUN, Neb. (AP) - A berm holding back floodwater at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station has collapsed....

... The 2,000-foot berm collapsed about 1:30 a.m. Sunday, allowing the swollen river to surround two buildings at the plant. The NRC says those buildings are designed to handle flooding up to 1014 feet above sea level. The river is at 1006.3 feet and isn't forecast to exceed 1008 feet....

http://www.kcautv.com/story/14978105...-nuclear-plant

=======================================

...The berm's collapse didn't affect the reactor shutdown cooling or the spent fuel pool cooling, but the power supply was cut after water surrounded the main electrical transformers, the NRC said. Emergency generators powered the plant Sunday while workers tried to restore power...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7627646.html

[Auburn Boy]

Fukushima here we come..,

[Curious]

Local TV news station report on the berm collapse. Apparently it was a 2000 foot section of the "inflatable berm" that collapsed, though I have not seen any explanation as to how or why. One can be certain that water is now intruding into the plant via various openings ... lets just hope the electrical is elevated and not below ground level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=097Tm...embedded#at=38

Of course they keep saying the plant is safe up to 1014', (river at plant currently 1006.6 with max expected level 1008'), if that is so why was there a need for an inflatable berm that only protected to 1010' to begin with?

Also ... does the 1008' projected height take into account the possibility of heavy rainfall in the watershed BELOW the Gavins Point Dam (which is several hundred miles upstream) during this expected 6 to 7 weeks of high water release?

Does the expected level of 1008' take into account the very real possibility of them having to increase discharges from the Gavins Point Dam during this expected 6 to 7 weeks of high water release?

Does this expected level of 1008' take into account the possiblity of BOTH of the last two events happening at the same time? ... or are they just "hoping" and "wishing"?

Just a reminder ... the outside electric coming into the plant, which they SAID WAS PROTECTED from the flood, after their work at upgrading it over the last couple of weeks, FAILED overnight!!

Everything that is happening is not exactly a confidence booster as to how they designed the plant, how they are running the plant, and their ability to protect the plant (and US!) in the event that the water events take a turn for the worse.

This watershed has a history of MASSIVE floods. Apparently we are now in the midst of the second 500 year flood in less than 60 years (1952) .... which really gives me NO CONFIDENCE in those 100 year and 500 year flood projections for this river. 1993 was alledgedly a 100 year flood event ... so that actually makes 3 large flood events in less than 60 years. (Could the "Experts" be wrong? ... I am sure they will tell you that they were and ARE right! It was just a statistical annomoly that 3 large flood events hit in only a 60 year window)

[Curious]

somebody else's comment from another site I sometimes visit ... sort of sums it up imo:

----------------------------------------------------

I would say, looking at this objectively...

Cut off from external power.

Water about 4 or more feet above plant grade level.

Water being held back only by the building walls and so-called water tight doors.

Pumps and switching equipment to become a smoking ruin if flooded.

The situation is pretty damn dire.

Do you think they can keep up that dance until August?

[Ought Six]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,4443757.story

Nebraska residents shrug off flood risk to nuclear plant

[Curious]

At 1:30 in the morning ... sheesh!!!

--------------------------------------------

...Some sort of machinery came in contact with the berm, puncturing it and causing the berm to deflate, said Mike Jones, a spokesman for the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), which owns the Fort Calhoun plant...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/nebraska.flooding/

[Curious]

June 26, 2011:

"...Meteorologists serving the Missouri River Basin Water Management organization predicted moderate to heavy rains today and into Monday, covering the Dakotas south to Missouri. At that point, the area is expected to see few precipitation chances until Thursday. By then, another frontal system is expected to organize in the Upper Missouri River Basin..."

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news...c8e350a5d.html

[mcgowanmc]

New news.

Oahe Spillway to open at 1620.

It's at 1618/19 now.

The corps' Col. Bob Ruch says the spillway would be used if Lake Oahe rises above the top of the flood gates or releases are increased to 167,000 cubic feet or more.

The emergency spillway at Oahe is an earthen channel instead of concrete. Ruch says using it would cause erosion and mean repairs and costs that the corps hopes to avoid.

[Sonny]

>snip
The berm’s collapse didn’t affect the reactor shutdown cooling or the spent fuel pool cooling, but the power supply was cut after water surrounded the main electrical transformers, the NRC said. Emergency generators powered the plant until an off-site power supply was connected Sunday afternoon, according to OPPD.
...
http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_vie...n=1&mn_id=3436

Image with location of main transformers circled

untitled.JPG

!

[Ought Six]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20074727.shtml

Floodwater seeps into Neb. nuke plant building

[Curious]

Is this any way to run a railroad ... or rather a nuclear plant that sits next to a river that floods periodically?

==================================

Cooper Nuclear Plant NRC Chairman's visit on Sunday June 26, 2011

...At Cooper on Sunday, plant officials led Gregory B. Jaczko, the N.R.C. chairman, on a tour, past thousands of feet of new berms and buildings where every doorway was barricaded with four-foot-high water barriers that are intended to survive even if an earthquake hits during a flood. Mr. Jaczko also toured the building that holds the diesel generators, which would supply vital electricity if the water knocked out the power grid.

Getting into that space required some doing. First, Mr. Jaczko climbed over a makeshift metal staircase to get over the flood barrier at the entrance to the building. Then, past a security guard armed with a military-style rifle, he stepped through a doorway into a small hallway blocked with a four-foot-high flood barrier. Visitors climbed three steps up an A-frame ladder, and then took a long step onto a temporary wooden platform, stepped over the four-foot-high barrier onto another platform, and then down a ladder on the other side.

“And if the water gets in here, what would be the result?” Mr. Jaczko asked.

“We’ve got a sump pump over here,” said Dan Goodman, the assistant operations manager, leading him around to the other side of the giant diesel generator, which is the size of a tractor-trailer. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/sc...th/27nuke.html