Virginia US Earthquake -- Nuclear Plant

QuantumPion

Quote by mheslep

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

Unit 1 was at 8% of full power, so they are taking it nice and easy.

tsutsuji

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

Quote by tsutsuji

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.

tsutsuji

A few details about the margins against elasticity limits at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa are mentioned in Atsuyuki Suzuki, Chairman, Nuclear Safety Commission "Findings of and Lessons Learned from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Quake" INRA meeting, Seoul, Korea April 28-29, 2009 http://www.nsc.go.jp/anzen/sonota/ko...u/20090430.pdf (9 pages)

NUCENG

Disposition of Thomas Sapporito 2.206 Petition on North Anna.

http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSe...39;ML11356A164'

Fairly lengthy discussion of all the review actions and Utility responses that went into decision that it was safe to restart the North Anna reactors.

Similar Threads for: Virginia US Earthquake -- Nuclear Plant
Thread	Forum	Replies
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

Astronuc Admin	Unit 1 was at 8% of full power, so they are taking it nice and easy.

tsutsuji Recognitions: Gold Member	A few details about the margins against elasticity limits at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa are mentioned in Atsuyuki Suzuki, Chairman, Nuclear Safety Commission "Findings of and Lessons Learned from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Quake" INRA meeting, Seoul, Korea April 28-29, 2009 http://www.nsc.go.jp/anzen/sonota/ko...u/20090430.pdf (9 pages)

NUCENG Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor	Disposition of Thomas Sapporito 2.206 Petition on North Anna. http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSe...39;ML11356A164' Fairly lengthy discussion of all the review actions and Utility responses that went into decision that it was safe to restart the North Anna reactors.