Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Zion

Author Topic: Zion  (Read 53579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jakester

  • Guest
Zion
« on: Apr 28, 2005, 06:57 »
With all of the talk of new plants, and the restart of Brown's Ferry 1, why not restart the Zion plant???

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #1 on: Apr 28, 2005, 08:03 »
Browns Ferry never gave up the Operating License. Zion did. It's easier to build a new nuke than to get the license back.

Also the plant was a lemon and the hard core union attitude just about drove it under.

The plant had a capacity fafctor of under 50 % and in 6 years or less they were going to have to replace their S/Gs

Mike

Offline NightCrawler

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 222
  • Gender: Male
  • I love NukeWorker.com!
Re: Zion
« Reply #2 on: Apr 28, 2005, 08:09 »
"Hard core union attitude drove it under".....that's a good one. 
  That was the big union/nmanagement issue.  The things that ruined Zion were problems on both ends, not just union sided.  Get your facts straight.  I was there.  Were you?


(Personal attacks deleted-RT)
« Last Edit: Apr 28, 2005, 08:42 by Roll Tide »

Offline AMU

Re: Zion
« Reply #3 on: Apr 29, 2005, 08:45 »
I too worked there on three occassions, I cut my teeth in the business at that plant.  There were definitely difficulties on both sides of labor at that plant.  I think it would  be worth looking into the cost of startup vs. building a new facility, if not already studied, even though both options would be expensive.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #4 on: Apr 29, 2005, 07:06 »
Oops, I erred and I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. I implied the Union at ComEd was entirely at fault. It certainly wasn't the only thing thing that decided the plants fate. I know it wasn't. The Union management relations were a big factor and I know I wasn't there, but I do know one of the people who had to make the decision so I know of ALL the factors that went into it.

I did oversimplify on one of the issues and I apologize.

Mike

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: Zion
« Reply #5 on: Apr 29, 2005, 08:20 »
IF we get new plants built and operating IAW the 2010 goal, I will be very happy. Can you imagine the people that decided to shutdown Zion and Maine Yankee coming into the control room of one of the next generation plants? It sounds like a takeoff of Dilbert; specifically when former dot.com executives visit real jobsites! (No offense intended to our beloved Rennhack dot.com, of course!)

I am sure there were convincing reasons for both, but can you imagine a hall of fame for the early decomms? Of all the plants to close in the past ten years, I believe only Big Rock Point closure would be justified today, based on current economic data and that is only due to their small size.

A big part of upper management is making decisions and living with them. I am sure the DC Cook management sometimes wondered if they had taken a wrong turn before dual unit return to power. Now they are fairly vindicated, but even more so when new plants start construction!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #6 on: Apr 29, 2005, 11:17 »
The sad part about Maine Yankee is there was nothing wrong with that plant. It was a classic case of anti nukes taking advantage of a regulation, combinedd with a new management who would rather not prove what they already knew.

Zion was a junk plant. It never had a good operating record, and the events that led to SER 9-97 showed the management, combined with the Operating staff shouldn't have been anywhere near a nuke unit.

Mike

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: Zion
« Reply #7 on: Apr 29, 2005, 11:44 »
I knew guys from both Maine Yankee and Zion, and while your analysis is harsh for Zion it is understandable. Still, can you imagine shutting down a two-unit site with about 1,000 MWe per plant under today's environment? Significantly smaller plants have had license renewal! Call me a hopeless romantic if you must, but I have to believe all of the problems could have been taken care of.
 
Disclaimer: I wasn't at Zion site, and I am speaking mostly from my standpoint as a staunch pro-nuke. I know people that did work there, and also people who were offered jobs there and decided that they would rather sit home and wait for something else! Regardless of that, the site had a good location in relation to the grid and
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #8 on: Apr 30, 2005, 09:08 »
Look at it this way. I'm not being harsh about the Management and staff. What they did in SER 9-97 was unforgivable and showed a shocking lack of even basic understanding of Nuclear Safety.

Here's an alternative to looking at Zion as being 2 1000 MWe units. The lifetime capacity factor of both units up till the time of the Zion Event was around 45% if that. So in effect it was ONE 900 MWe plant. Since it wasn't reliable, or run reliably even that 900 MWE wasn't available when it needed to be. In an era where capacity and availability factors were rising almost exponentially throughout the industry Zions was actually LOWERING. In fact her availibility factor was lower than her capacity factor.

Both units had S/Gs that were slowly turning into junk, and since it was Com Eds fault they were going to have to foot the whole bill. They'd have to replace 8 SG/s within 7 years (and that's a Rose Colored Glasses Number) for units that

1: They were having people problems with that weren't being solved.

2: Had never produced enough electricity to be profitable

3: Even when operating were always on the verge of a SCRAM or TS Shutdown.

4: Were going to cost Com Ed a LOT of money just to get back to a baseline condition.

5: Where the staff didn't understand basic nuclear safety.

I can see why they just pulled the plug.

Mike

astronuke

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2005, 06:16 »
What is the status of Rancho Seco in California?  Could it be brought back online if a miracle occurred and the voters (or Arnold) allowed it?  I never heard if the plant was decommissioned or just defueled and put on ice.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2005, 09:09 »
Same as Zion. They gave up the Operating License. Once you do that you're not going to get it back.

Mike

Offline starving_dog

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 144
  • Gender: Male
  • Master of my domain
Re: Zion
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2005, 10:55 »
Zion had actually started procuring replacement steam generators prior to making the decision to pull the plug on the plant.  The forgings that Zion ordered for the RSG's ended up in D.C. Cook.
There are the Habs, and the Hab nots.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2005, 12:34 »
Wasn't there also talk about revamping one of the Units and shutting down the other?

Mike

Offline starving_dog

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 144
  • Gender: Male
  • Master of my domain
Re: Zion
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2005, 12:40 »
I can't remember if they were ordering generators for one unit or both.  My gut says it was one unit.
There are the Habs, and the Hab nots.

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: Zion
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2005, 10:57 »
I realize there were problems at Zion. I also know that "facts" changed over time at other plants:

When I was hired at Turkey Point in 1996, one of the "facts" was the plants would be shutdown if the S/G's required replacement again. The SGRP had cost as much as the original construction, and they weren't going to do it again, and this was a fact at that time. The plant had a negative history, but was much better in the 90's.
Rate analysis said the cheapest power source in S. FLA. was combined cycle natural gas powered units, so those would be put in place if Turkey Point Nuclear was shutdown.
With the current demand for natural gas and electricity, Turkey Point is viewed as a gold mine instead of marginally profitable. It turns out S/G are a good investment!   ;D


When TVA shut down all nuclear plants (who said hiring an Admiral was the way to fix TVAN anyway!) it decided to start them back up one at a time. The "facts" at the time were that there wasn't enough demand to restart BFN1, and even if demand picked up it would be cheaper to use fossil fuel. Now over $1 Billion is being spent to restart Browns Ferry Unit 1, in response to increased demand for electricity and concerns over air pollution in the Smoky Mountains. The next step is consideration of new nuclear generation for TVA and license extension for all TVAN that doesn't have it yet.  :D

The facts at the time of Zion's closure made sense; I wonder if the decision would be different today with the new facts?  ???
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Offline NightCrawler

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 222
  • Gender: Male
  • I love NukeWorker.com!
Re: Zion
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2005, 11:05 »
Over the years, the word on S/G's for Zion was ever changing.  One year it would be for both units.  The next year it would be just one unit.  To be honest, I can't recall if they intended to get them for both units, just one, or for neither.  That's the nature of working for Exelon Corp.....they always keep you guessing.

Offline slick1

  • Very Lite User
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 9
  • Gender: Male
  • Well, well, well.
Re: Zion
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2005, 02:25 »
About a month ago I heard a rumor that Zion has ordered new generators (this rumor was from one of the local Unions; not in the nuclear community).  After some asking around I heard Zion plant managment (friend-of-a-friend) said it was not true.  No new generators or statup planned.

As for the post on Ranch Seco, there is little hope of restarting that becasue of the extent it has been shut down.  There probably is another thread on the decommissioning status, but I understand internals are ready to be chopped up any day.

Slick
this space for rent

Offline Dave Warren

  • Radiological Engineer
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 2909
  • Total likes: 16
  • Karma: 1561
  • Gender: Male
  • Cubs vs. White Sox in the Series this year.
Re: Zion
« Reply #17 on: Dec 15, 2007, 07:17 »
About a month ago I heard a rumor that Zion has ordered new generators (this rumor was from one of the local Unions; not in the nuclear community).  After some asking around I heard Zion plant managment (friend-of-a-friend) said it was not true.  No new generators or statup planned.

As for the post on Ranch Seco, there is little hope of restarting that becasue of the extent it has been shut down.  There probably is another thread on the decommissioning status, but I understand internals are ready to be chopped up any day.

Slick

December 11, 2007 – EnergySolutions, Inc. (NYSE: ES), signed an agreement today with Exelon Corporation to accelerate the decommissioning and environmental restoration of the Zion Nuclear Power Station site located in Zion, Illinois. Pending Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval, EnergySolutions, Inc. expects to take possession of the facility in 2008 to begin decommissioning.

“This project launches our license stewardship strategy whereby we conduct decommissioning and site restoration work as both owner and licensee,” said Steve Creamer, CEO of EnergySolutions. “Under this program we will utilize the unique capabilities and facilities of EnergySolutions to reduce project schedules, increase the efficiencies of the decommissioning process and better control project costs.”

The decommissioning of the Zion Nuclear Power Station will be substantially accelerated under this agreement. When the decommissioning work is completed and independently verified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hundreds of acres of lakefront property will be available for other uses. The decommissioning will be performed using state-of-the-art technology and rigorous environmental controls to protect human health and the environment and to preserve the lakefront and wetlands properties.

ddklbl

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #18 on: Dec 15, 2007, 11:20 »
A few thoughts on this thread...

Do they intend to scrap their "synchronous condensor".  Their website mentions how invaluable they are to grid stability.  Is that a bunch of smoke and mirrors? 

Second, from way up top in this thread: how do commercial plants evaluate capacity and availability factors.  You cannot have AF < CF.  Breaker to breaker runs still have to have downpowers for maintanance and it takes time on startups and shutdowns to get to or from full power (nit-picky, I know).  The plant availability time will always be more than the time you operated it at full capacity.

I've read on some plants public websites that they have capacity factors greater than one  ???  Making some assumptions that a plant on an 18 month cycle takes two weeks to refuel, then it would have had a maximum AF of 0.97 (i.e. 76 weeks divided by 78 weeks).  So, how could you get the plant to operate at capacity when she had on fuel in her?

Quote
In 2000, Unit 2 established a new unit generation record of 10,337,818 mwh. The previous record for the unit was 10,310,828 established in 1997.
Unit 2's year end capacity factor set a new record for the plant at 102.4%, surpassing the old record of 101.2% set in 1997. Capacity factor is a unit's actual output of electricity as a percentage of its maximum potential output.

Are they using post power uprate numbers versus pre-power uprate machine limits?  Either way, it's disingenuous.  But, hey, consider the source.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #19 on: Dec 16, 2007, 11:20 »
They figure out average environmental conditions for the area. From this they figure out the Maximum Dependable Capacity of your plant. It's a weighted average of what you expect due to variations in river or heat sink temperatures. This is the what your Capacity Factor will be based on. If you have a cold winter your capacity factor will go up. Usually they are not weighted so a hot summer will really hurt you much as the Hotter numbers are rarely based on any number except that which you'd have to shut the plant down anyway.
Downpowers are usually of short enough duration they don't really hurt your number.

Note when a plant is exceeding 100% Capacity Factor it is not operating at greater than 100% Thermal Power. It merely means the turbine/generator end is operating more better!

Mike

ddklbl

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #20 on: Dec 16, 2007, 04:06 »
They figure out average environmental conditions for the area. From this they figure out the Maximum Dependable Capacity of your plant. It's a weighted average of what you expect due to variations in river or heat sink temperatures. This is the what your Capacity Factor will be based on. If you have a cold winter your capacity factor will go up. Usually they are not weighted so a hot summer will really hurt you much as the Hotter numbers are rarely based on any number except that which you'd have to shut the plant down anyway.
Downpowers are usually of short enough duration they don't really hurt your number.

Note when a plant is exceeding 100% Capacity Factor it is not operating at greater than 100% Thermal Power. It merely means the turbine/generator end is operating more better!

Mike

Acadamia defines capacity factor as the integrand of actual thermal power over maximum thermal power for a given time period.  The NRC has a similar definition, only to use MWe compared to the maximum possible. 

By what you're saying, the Utilities have cooked up a third definition based on plant efficiency, river temps, dependability ???, other smoke and mirrors and not raw power output.  Raising efficiency will not raise your maximum output.  It just  takes less effort to get there.  I stand by what I said earlier, it seems disingenous.  Like they are either hiding something or straight out lying to their shareholders. 

Common sense alone would question how you could have a CF or AF greater than 1. 

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #21 on: Dec 16, 2007, 06:35 »
Actually no, the Industry didn't come up with it. It's an NRC Term and is required to be filed IAW the UFSAR. I don't really give a flying R*Ts A** if you like it. MDC is the real world term that is used to figure out capacity factor.

Mike

ddklbl

  • Guest
Re: Zion
« Reply #22 on: Dec 17, 2007, 06:22 »
so dependable,...subtle like a brick enema,... 8)

::)

Either I can't ask a question that sufficiently conveys my hang-ups or we are all a bunch of jacka$$es.  Now that the cheerleaders are here, this thread has outlived it's usefulness. 







Modified for spelling (yeah spelling).  hc
« Last Edit: Dec 17, 2007, 06:25 by honeycomb »

Offline nowhereman

Re: Zion
« Reply #23 on: Aug 02, 2008, 04:57 »
Has anyone heard of anything blowing in the wind about Zion's decommissioning(other than the basics of EnergySolutions having the contract), say....any RP/FSS subcontracts ?

Offline NJ

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 111
  • Gender: Female
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Zion
« Reply #24 on: Aug 02, 2008, 10:04 »
Either I can't ask a question that sufficiently conveys my hang-ups or we are all a bunch of jacka$$es.  Now that the cheerleaders are here, this thread has outlived it's usefulness. 

This is why new people RUN FROM POSTING :-[  Sorry for the "Cheerleaders"


 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?