Talk:Arkansas Nuclear One

Reactor Output
Both reactors combined only produce 1.776 Gigawatts (1776 MW) of power, but in the table where it says Operational Reactors (MW) the number is higher. Where does the extra power come from, or did I misinterpret the information? 69.155.125.122 (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jigawatts?
I changed "jigawatts" to MW. I don't think jigawatt is a valid unit of measurement. I checked with the operator's website just to be sure, but the actual values have been uprated on DoE site. Tumeric12 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, jigawatts are not valid units of energy. The closest thing that sounds similar would be Gigawatts, but Megawatts is the realistic value. 69.155.125.122 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reactor 2 operation start date
The date listed on the wikipedia page is different from linked official Entergy website. A year and half different. I am changing to the Entergy website's listed date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanji (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Changed back, the website lists something different than the USNRC and the latter is much more likely to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanji (talk • contribs) 07:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch on the discrepancy ... Hmm. The NRC says
 * Unit 1: "Operating License: Issued - 05/21/1974, Expires - 05/20/2034"
 * Unit 2: "Operating License: Issued - 09/01/1978, Expires - 07/17/2018"
 * The DoE lists those issue dates as the on-line dates. But it seems very unlikely they began commercial operation the very days the licenses were issued. So I think I believe Entergy's start dates of December 1974 (#1) and March 1980 (#2). I dropped an email to DoE to check.


 * It's odd that Unit 2's original license expired a few weeks shy of a full 40 years.
 * —WWoods (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What is "it"?
"Unit two is the only one that uses the cooling tower. Unit one releases it back into Lake Dardanelle." What is "it"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.24.142 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename
Is it really supposed to be "Arkansas Nuclear One" or is it a mistake? I mean, shouldn't it be "Arkansas Nuclear Power Station"? Rehman(+) 10:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the name of the facility is "Arkansas Nuclear One." See: Arkansas Nuclear One —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.219.177 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.power-technology.com/projects/arkansasnuclearonepo/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Osha report
Conclusions:1.The primary cause of the collapse of the temporary overhead crane was the flaw in the structural design of the temporary overhead crane. The structural columns on the north end were not provided with any diagonal braces or lateral ties in the north-south direction at the intermediate header beam level, and thus created instability of the columns. If diagonal braces or lateral ties were provided in the design, this incident would not have occurred.

2.In violation of the OSHA standard, this overhead crane was not load-tested prior to its use in the turbine building. OSHA 1926.1438(b) was violated. Entergy’s “Material Handling Program” also called for a load test.

3.Bigge’s contention that the load test was not necessary because most of the structural members were used in prior lifts has little merit. The configuration of the structural members was significantly different from other lifts, and, therefore, a load test was required. Besides, a number of components of the supporting frame were new.

4.Bigge designed the overhead crane for 100% of the hook load instead of 125 percent as called for in the Entergy’s “Material Handling Program”.

5.Entergy’s “Material Handling Program” called for nondestructive tests of welds prior to and after the load test. Welds were not tested.

6.Siemens, Entergy and DP Engineering had multiple opportunities to review and question the structural design performed by Bigge, but did not do so.

7.Siemens, Entergy and DP engineering knowingly permitted Bigge to conduct the lift without making sure that Bigge had conducted a load test. Thus, OSHA’s standard 1926.1438(b) was violated.

8.DP Engineering Ltd., performed poorly in reviewing Bigge’s computations, and failed to question Bigge’s structural design. DP also did not question Bigge’s incorrect arguments that load test was not required. Thus, OSHA’s general duty clause 5(a) (1) was violated.9.Employees not directly involved in the lift were permitted to stay in close proximity of the load and the crane. Thus OSHA standard 1926.1425 was violated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.128.177.152 (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)