Talk:Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Problems[edit]

Section reads During an extended power uprate test designed to extend the power efficiency of aging BWR reactors the Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station unit 2 (Illinois) began to shake itself apart. On March 29 the plant was manually shut down due to high vibrations causing leaks in the main turbine control system. Unit 2 had a restart on April 2, but vibration broke a main steam pipe drain line. The line was repaired and the restart resumed but by June 7 the main steam lines were showing unexplained aberrations. On June 18 it became obvious that the power uprate was causing damage so the power was reduced but the damage had been done. Once again the plant was taken offline for repairs on July 11. The problem was traced to a hole in the steam dryer—it was repaired and braced, then unit 2 was restarted on July 21, 2002. The steam dryer failed again on May 28, 2003 with a ¾ in x 9 ft (20 mm by 2.7 m) crack. These two failures have not deterred the NRC from continuning the EPU program and offering these extended power uprates to the other BWR . (my emphasis). While the facts may be as presented (no knowledge either way), it reads like an anti-nuclear press release to me. I've highlighted two of the phrases that seem to be at fault. But probably I'm not the one to correct it, as I'm a card-carrying supporter of nuclear power and my own POV will be hard to overcome. Andrewa (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has now tagged this section as unreferenced, with edit summary 2 cites don't say any of this. Checking the links, one is an anti-nuclear site, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and although it tells a similar story to the section it doesn't support the details given in this section. The other is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission site, and it does support the claim that the upgrade program is to continue (as does the previous reference) and some of the details given but has no mention of the problems. So the citations don't support the claims made. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]