Register to reply

Virginia US Earthquake - Nuclear Plant

by QuantumPion
Tags: earthquake, nuclear, plant, virginia
Share this thread:
NUCENG
#55
Sep12-11, 04:25 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Per plant, as in what North Anna may face for seismic hardening.
And based on the fact that North Anna did not experience significant damage in the earthquake, what is the basis for your WAG that even they will have to expend "hundreds of millions?" Your threshold is so far beyond reality that it is difficult to believe you are trying to discuss realistic consequences from the earthquake.
mheslep
#56
Sep12-11, 04:29 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,103
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
And based on the fact that North Anna did not experience significant damage in the earthquake, what is the basis for your WAG that even they will have to expend "hundreds of millions?" Your threshold is so far beyond reality that it is difficult to believe you are trying to discuss realistic consequences from the earthquake.
??? I agree, from reports so far, that N. Anna had no significant damage. I'm reacting to your earlier post that none the less the NRC is holding N. Anna for "ransom" to "resolve" the seismic issue.
NUCENG
#57
Sep12-11, 05:05 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
??? I agree, from reports so far, that N. Anna had no significant damage. I'm reacting to your earlier post that none the less the NRC is holding N. Anna for "ransom" to "resolve" the seismic issue.
Maybe I misunderstood your point then. I said there was a potential for NRC to hold North Anna hostage based on previous experience. I have no idea how that morphed into "hundreds of millions."

I was explaining that in the past NRC has held a licensee hostage to apply leverage to the industry. That may be a useful tactic, but it can be pretty expensive for the hostage and can rise to regulatory abuse. (Cost of replacement power can be much greater than the cost of resolving the issue depending on how long the issue is unresolved. NRC has not issued their final regulatory analysis on GI-199 so if the hold North Anna's two units in shutdown until the issue is resolved it becomes completely unfair to North Anna, and potentially, any other plant that needs a license amendment or restart permission in the meantime. I say unfair, because first. the NRC is already on record saying that GI-199 does not rise to the level where they could order plants to shutdown to resolve the issue, and second, North Anna design worked during the earthquake.

The politics of restarting North Anna may become more deterministic that the engineering and safety issue. What I heard in the public meeting sounded like a bunch of staffers setting up to do exactly that. North Anna needs to complete their inspections and surveillances and issue the root cause report. NRC needs to issue guidance on what documentation from North Anna for restart. Then NRC needs to prevent piling on issues not related to the earthquake, including final resolution of GI-199 and the Fukushima Task Force recommendations. Those side issues should not be used to delay restart.

Unfortunately, "should" and "shall" are not the same. NRC management at the public meeting weakly agreed that revision of design basis seismic design spectra for North Anna was not a prerequisite for restart. We'll see.

Again, if I misunderstood your point, hopefully we are closer to mutual understanding each other now, even if not in agreement
Caniche
#58
Sep12-11, 06:47 PM
P: 106
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
The industry still produces competitive power.
Not in the UK it doesn't. 2010 taxpayers subsidy amounted to 3 billion for the nuclear power providers ,and that's without any provision for waste management/storage.
How does this compare with other states?
DoggerDan
#59
Sep12-11, 11:48 PM
P: 77
Quote Quote by Caniche View Post
Not in the UK it doesn't. 2010 taxpayers subsidy amounted to 3 billion for the nuclear power providers ,and that's without any provision for waste management/storage.
How does this compare with other states?
So that's 48 per capita?
zapperzero
#60
Sep13-11, 04:07 AM
P: 1,045
Look what Google gave me :)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...rth+anna&hl=en
QuantumPion
#61
Sep13-11, 02:33 PM
P: 778
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
Hah that's awesome.
NUCENG
#62
Sep13-11, 03:16 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by QuantumPion View Post
Hah that's awesome.
zz and QP

Before the onslaught of inane one-liner comments gets too obnoxious, isn't it reassuring that in spite of the state of the art THIRTY SIX YEARS AGO being a little weak on forecasting the earthquake, they still managed to build a plant that produced power without undo risk to the public? Perhaps we should take an unintended lesson from Arnie Gundersen and go back to using slide rules, because what they designed, seems to have worked rather well.

Thank you zz, for finding this evidence of successful design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a nuclear power plant.
zapperzero
#63
Sep13-11, 04:40 PM
P: 1,045
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
zz and QP

Before the onslaught of inane one-liner comments gets too obnoxious, isn't it reassuring that in spite of the state of the art THIRTY SIX YEARS AGO being a little weak on forecasting the earthquake, they still managed to build a plant that produced power without undo risk to the public? Perhaps we should take an unintended lesson from Arnie Gundersen and go back to using slide rules, because what they designed, seems to have worked rather well.

Thank you zz, for finding this evidence of successful design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a nuclear power plant.
Hey. Sorry for not providing a summary. I know it's an obnoxious habit, I was on the run.

You may have a very good point wrt slide rules.

An engineer friend of mine once told me that Roman buildings that have survived to this day did not survive because the Romans were engineering gods. Quite to the contrary, they survived because they are grossly overbuilt - Romans pretty much sucked at materials science, knew very little about static loads and nothing about dynamics so they just built'em as thick as they could afford, left ample room for the many unknown unknowns they were dealing with.

He also told me that safety standards evolve. The more you know, the finer you can cut it.
NUCENG
#64
Nov3-11, 02:24 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Licensee Event Report for North Anna Earthquake:

http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/IDMWS...er=ML11299A018
NUCENG
#65
Nov7-11, 02:11 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
News item from 1977 showing typical HUFPO bias:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1078870.html

The original story is perhaps a little more balanced because they actually included the NRC response:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/n...up-ar-1438362/

Please, read the following 1977 DOJ memo carefully:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/mgmedi...8/110511-nuke/

Note that the issue was reviewed and resolved before the Units 1 and 2 operating licesnses were issued and operation began in 1978 and 1980, respectfully. (Units 3 and 4 were cancelled after TMI2.) Another excellent example of why coverup is stupid.
swl
#66
Nov14-11, 09:53 PM
P: 108
Dominion Restarts North Anna Reactor

So, despite the fact that the recent Virginia earthquake exceeded the geological estimates for the site, and despite the fact that the quake exceeded the design basis, and despite the fact that the quake damaged the plant, it has been 'determined' that the plant is safe to resume operation. Should we conclude that the recent quake was the 'new' largest possible for the region?
Astronuc
#67
Nov14-11, 10:11 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,915
Quote Quote by swl View Post
Dominion Restarts North Anna Reactor

So, despite the fact that the recent Virginia earthquake exceeded the geological estimates for the site, and despite the fact that the quake exceeded the design basis, and despite the fact that the quake damaged the plant, it has been 'determined' that the plant is safe to resume operation. Should we conclude that the recent quake was the 'new' largest possible for the region?
North Anna Unit 1 started up this morning.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...1114ps.html#r2

The plant staff did inspections regarding the various critical systems and determined that structural integrity was maintained. I expect they will to a relatively slow power ascension, with a few hold points.

One should not expect that the earthquake is the maximum possible. USGS and the utility will have to monitor the area.
mheslep
#68
Nov14-11, 11:03 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,103
Quote Quote by swl View Post
..., and despite the fact that the quake damaged the plant,
I am aware there was incidental damage to support buildings. I am not aware of any damage to the reactor or its containment structure, nor to any waste storage. Do you have information to the contrary?
QuantumPion
#69
Nov15-11, 08:15 AM
P: 778
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
I am aware there was incidental damage to support buildings. I am not aware of any damage to the reactor or its containment structure, nor to any waste storage. Do you have information to the contrary?
There wasn't any damage, period. The only issue was some cracking of some dry cask horizontal storage module concrete non-structural components.

Also, I think there is some confusion as to the definition of what a design basis accident is. A design basis accident is not the the worst case scenario which the plant can withstand. A design basis accident is the MINIMUM accident the plant MUST be able to withstand without any loss of safety function. The distinction lies in the fact that there is tons of margin and conservatism in the design.

Oh, and it was the NRC that "determined" the plant could start back up again.
Astronuc
#70
Nov15-11, 08:19 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,915
Unit 1 was at 8% of full power, so they are taking it nice and easy.
tsutsuji
#71
Nov15-11, 08:52 AM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
Among the points raised by the Group of Concerned Scientists and Engineers Calling for the Closure of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant after the 2007 earthquake at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, one question was whether "the force applied exceeded the elasticity limit of the materials of equipment" ( http://cnic.jp/english/topics/safety...st21aug07.html ). Even if there is no apparent damage, if the elasticity limit has been exceeded, the metal might have become more brittle and would not resist a future earthquake as well as fresh new metal coming right down from the furnace. I guess similar questions could be asked, or rather, I hope, have already been asked and given a satisfying answer, concerning the Virginia earthquake.
QuantumPion
#72
Nov15-11, 02:28 PM
P: 778
Quote Quote by tsutsuji View Post
Among the points raised by the Group of Concerned Scientists and Engineers Calling for the Closure of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant after the 2007 earthquake at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, one question was whether "the force applied exceeded the elasticity limit of the materials of equipment" ( http://cnic.jp/english/topics/safety...st21aug07.html ). Even if there is no apparent damage, if the elasticity limit has been exceeded, the metal might have become more brittle and would not resist a future earthquake as well as fresh new metal coming right down from the furnace. I guess similar questions could be asked, or rather, I hope, have already been asked and given a satisfying answer, concerning the Virginia earthquake.
That sounds like 99% enriched weapons-grade-baloneyum to me.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Virginia Earthquake of 2011, Aug 23 General Discussion 61
Non nuclear part of a nuclear power plant Nuclear Engineering 10
Nuclear Plant Layout Nuclear Engineering 2