[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=28213" target="_blank">PM hints heads could roll in reactor shutdown</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/14-misc-cdn" target="_blank">Misc CDN</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-12-13 08:54:39
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[hurley_108]

And whose head will roll if there's an accident in start-up? Or before the problem is solved that forced the shutdown in the first place?

[Scape]

Like an earthquake in an earthqauke zone? You're tempting fate.

[ridenrain]

Woops. There goes another Liberal appointment.

[DrCaleb]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

And whose head will roll if there's an accident in start-up? Or before the problem is solved that forced the shutdown in the first place?

You mean like someone confuses 'cold' water with 'hot' because the pipes aren't labelled?

I'd say the Janitor's head would roll because the floor wasn't cleaned with the 'hot'. The shutdown was for regular maintainence. But AECL wouldn't let it restart because of things like unlabelled water pipes, and the backup for the second pump wasn't able to withstand a Richter 6 earthquake.

For once, I agree with the CPC. People's lives should not be in jeopardy because of AECL bureaucrats.

[Scape]

So when is the oldest reactor of its type in the world to shut down then? I agree the regulations you point out are superfluous but this is not something that was not unforeseen. What if there WAS an emergency shutdown, what then? There is not act of parliament to get the reactor on line then. The regulations are in place for the safety of the community at large not for the janitor’s safety.

[sasquatch2]

Scape

$1:

For once, I agree with the CPC. People's lives should not be in jeopardy because of AECL bureaucrats.

For starters it was not AECL bureaucrats that shut it down. AECL is the operator. It was the regulatory agency which seems to have one purpose to provide employment for swivell servants whose only activity is to dream up new regulations. That is the agency which will be disolved or have a major shakeup.

Although it is a nuclear reactor, the situation is not rocket science.

$1:

"I think it is ridiculous that the government can only resolve an escalating dispute between these two agencies by actually coming to Parliament and passing a law," Harper said during question period.

He also signalled again that he's not happy with the performance of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the regulator that forced the shutdown by declaring the reactor was in violation of its operating licence.

He said commission members intended to resolve the problem "in their own sweet time," despite the growing shortage of isotopes needed for potentially life-saving medical procedures.

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

So when is the oldest reactor of its type in the world to shut down then?

I agree, it needs to be shut down for maintainence, but the OPAL reactor in Australia is also shut down (back in July). Together, they make up most of the worlds supply of isotopes.

They could have picked a better time to shut down Chalk River. And the CNSC didn't need to be so pedantic on it's restart. (my bad on the AECL mixup)

Scape Scape:

What if there WAS an emergency shutdown, what then? There is not act of parliament to get the reactor on line then. The regulations are in place for the safety of the community at large not for the janitor’s safety.

If OPAL were operating, it wouldn't be an issue. The 'community' is in the middle of nowhere, and not to sound cold, but the risk of an accident is minimal. Chalk River does not produce electricity, only medical isotopes. It has fully functioning backups and redundant systems. Unless there is a magnitude 6.1 earthquake, and then one backup system *might* fail.

[WBenson]

This situation as a whole worries me. I don't think that Chalk River is a big threat to the community, but what if one day something really is and Parliament and the Government decide to sacrifice that community "for the common good"?

[ryan29]

WBenson WBenson:

This situation as a whole worries me. I don't think that Chalk River is a big threat to the community, but what if one day something really is and Parliament and the Government decide to sacrifice that community "for the common good"?

well your speculating with that one , i don't think parliament would of restarted this reactor if they didn't believe it was in fact safe to use . and that there was no risk to public, this whole incident reminds me of that port hope smear campaign over the study done there . just another oppurtunity to bash nuclear power .

[Scape]

It's not a reactor in an earthquake I am concerned about here, at least not this one anyway. The NSC granted a new license to the AECL on the condition that AECL would complete seven upgrades. They didn't. On Nov 19 they discovered that the connection of two cooling pumps to a backup supply had not been installed as ordered. Now I grant the chance of a 6.1 quake is remote but that's not the point, they didn't do it. So what teeth does the NSC have if their conditions can be ignored? Now the NSC is not without fault here as they did not inform Health Canada that a shut down was in the works the moment that this was discovered and they should have aborted the shutdown and worked with AECL to avert a crisis and did the paperwork in follow up. That being said, and the government ordering a restart is the correct action here, the authority of the NSC is compromised with every other nuclear facility in Canada. They have been publicly neutered and if you don't think major footdragging will be the result of this from every major nuclear operator in Canada you're dreaming in technocolour. In that regard the safety of the community of Canada at large is at stake.

[1Peg]

Correct me if i`m wrong.....This reactor is almost 50 years old,and was to be shut down for good in 2005. Why is it that we are now worrying about a power failure to this reactor? This should have been looked after years ago.

[WBenson]

ryan29 ryan29:

WBenson WBenson:

This situation as a whole worries me. I don't think that Chalk River is a big threat to the community, but what if one day something really is and Parliament and the Government decide to sacrifice that community "for the common good"?

well your speculating with that one , i don't think parliament would of restarted this reactor if they didn't believe it was in fact safe to use . and that there was no risk to public, this whole incident reminds me of that port hope smear campaign over the study done there . just another oppurtunity to bash nuclear power .

I know. "What if" generally means speculation.

[Scape]

1Peg 1Peg:

Correct me if i`m wrong.....This reactor is almost 50 years old,and was to be shut down for good in 2005. Why is it that we are now worrying about a power failure to this reactor? This should have been looked after years ago.

NRU shut down

$1:

NRU first went critical on November 3, 1957. Under AECL's previous operating licence, the reactor was scheduled to be shut down at the end of 2005.

But the company applied for permission to keep the reactor operating to the year 2011 "and beyond" while discussions continue with the federal government about a possible eventual replacement.

In its application for the extra time, AECL said it has spent more than $30 million over the past 15 years upgrading the reactor's safety systems and bringing it up to current standards.

Combined with a "systematic and wide-ranging review" of the reactor, AECL said NRU can keep running "with a very high degree of assurance of safety and reliability."

"The material condition of NRU and its critical structures, systems and components will support continued safe and reliable operation, with a good prognosis for the next 10 years."

During hearings on the new Chalk River site licence, which includes NRU, CNSC members said they were generally pleased with the progress AECL has made.

But that didn't stop commission members from asking some pointed questions.

Commission members noted that CNSC staff have found a number of "deficiencies" in an audit of two safety upgrades AECL has completed on NRU.

Those deficiencies included problems with welders' qualifications, work proceeding beyond a mandatory inspection hold-point, and concrete work that was not controlled in a way to ensure that the results met the required specifications.