Jump to content

Talk:Byron Nuclear Generating Station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surrounding Population

[edit]

This shouldn't even be a section - whole thing should be deleted. Why are these on NPP pages? Definitely should not be the top, it should be at the bottom 162.213.136.97 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to move it to bottom --User:Haraldmmueller 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactor

[edit]

I believe Byron actually has Westinghouse reactors to match Braidwood's —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.29.191.147 (talk • contribs) .

I moved your comments to the talk page, please add comments or questions here. --Dual Freq 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byron is actually a Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.247.41 (talk • contribs) .

Moved comments to this page. Please cite the source and change the reactor type. leave comments on this page. --Dual Freq 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I'll do it myself. --Dual Freq 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Why was my photo of the station removed? Sac s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sac s (talk • contribs) 12:18, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Please see your talk page, I meant no offense. IvoShandor 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC) :][reply]

Unusual event

[edit]

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2008/20080326en.html "At 1835 on March 25, 2008, Unit 2 experienced a Loss of Offsite Power. At 1849, an Unusual Event was declared. Station Auxiliary Transformer (SAT) 242-2, Phase C, experienced a Phase Overcurrent. This resulted in an isolation of the SAT, a loss of offsite power, and an automatic Fire Protection deluge of the SAT. No fire was confirmed. All equipment responded as required. The appropriate abnormal operating procedure was entered for event mitigation and is in progress. The Unit 2 Emergency Diesel Generators are supplying required safety-related power. Unit 2 remains at power." "The plant is stable and all equipment is functioning as required. The licensee is assessing a cross-tie to Unit 1 which is unaffected by this event and in the refueling mode." An anon added a note about this yesterday, but it doesn't seem worth mentioning in the article. They didn't even shut down Unit 2. Are all "unusual events" notable? --Dual Freq (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that could be mentioned. I know it was written up in our local paper as that the fire department responded, but no fire was found at the site. I would say it is notable, as it took place at a nuclear plant, and if it is unusual it prolly doesn't happen very often.--Kranar drogin (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wouldn't know what to write about it. A transformer had an over current on one of its phases, it was isolated and deluged by its fire protection system. I would think they would have shut the reactor down had it been a big deal, but they didn't. See also False alarm at Byron Generating Station. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, and I am a bit late on this, but in a past life (job) I did some pretty intense research into nuclear safety (basically I have read every "event notification report" the NRC issued from 1999-2006), including all of the event declaration that must be filed with the NRC. Unusual event being the lowest of four levels of events that occur at U.S. nuclear facilities. I would file the above under non-notable incident, rarely are these unusual events anything significant. More significant events are termed "Alerts", and those aren't even usually that serious. If there were a forced shut down of the reactor, then a "site-area emergency" probably would have been declared. Those are usually pretty serious, and almost always make the regional headlines. Just my thoughts. IvoShandor (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though reading it over again I see we included one in the past, wonder why? I can't remember. Hang on, I will pour over my NRC records. Back with more. :) IvoShandor (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's because, according to my own original research (which is unpublished so can't be included -- I never got around to writing the piece), there were exactly zero incidents at Byron from 2000-2005 requiring an NRC "emergency classification" at Byron. So we can't mention my research (only compiled on my blog) but we can include the incident in the article, since there are now two in the last two years. Some plants have these declarations frequently, it all depends on which one and where it is at. So now I vote include it, if we haven't.IvoShandor (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to improve

[edit]

There have been some tweaks since I left but I have been working here and there to improve this article. Listed below are things I have done and things left to do from an old peer review, archived above. Done

  • Wrote a better caption for one image.
  • Added an animation of a pressurized water reactor
  • Removed some redundancy and disorganized information
  • Uploaded and added tighter crop of AUg 2005 image, might want it in infobox now
  • Rewrote caption to new image version
  • Added directions to location from cities

To-do

  • Anything on security before 9/11
  • Security zone size
  • Explain Dresden contamination in a sentence or two
  • Work in info about total number of nuke plants in IL (context)
  • Cooling towers: numbered? volume?
  • Temp information for discharge water (associated rules)
  • Clarify why there is no security zone now
  • Any published predictions about its fate post-license expiration

I think that's it so far. IvoShandor (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few photos...

[edit]

http://picasaweb.google.com/ThePotsy/NukeCruisin?authkey=r37ybTGtJms#

Feel free to use them.

Article needs details about tritium contamination

[edit]

This article could benefit from some information about how the tritium contamination occurred. Further, many of the reference links are dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oanjao (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"Other water, from Byron's Radioactive Waste Treatment system, is transferred to the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST), where it is analyzed and sampled for contamination. Once it passes through analysis, the water is discharged down the blowdown line into the river.[8]" Link is no good, and I know for a fact that the water from the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) does not go into the river. The RWST holds reactor water and it is used to fill the fuel pool, reactor water, and water to fill the refuel cavity during refueling. The water from the waste treatment system is stored in decay tanks and then blown down into the river after treatment. Since there isn't a reference to this, and the only reference I have is training materials that are proprietary, this should be removed unless a more correct reference can be found.Headrattle (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Byron 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit: Byron to stay open after Illinois senate passed the latest energy bill

[edit]

The Illinois Senate has recently passed an energy bill that will keep Byron and Dresden open for at least the next five years, but is still awaiting the governor to sign the bill. Posting the edit request here as I work for a different plant at Exelon to avoid any WP:COI violations.

Prose (add this to the end of the History section):

"However, by September 13, the proposed shutdown date for Byron, the Illinois Senate and House had approved a new energy bill that would provide nearly $700 million in subsidies to Exelon, providing the necessary funds to keep Byron and Dresden open."

Sources:

Thanks, WuTang94 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Station&oldid=1200495097"