Virginia US Earthquake - Nuclear Plant

In summary: Don't know where you heard that but it is incorrect. The spent fuel pool coolers run off the same backup power as every other safety-related system.
  • #71


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/earthquake/kkscientist21aug07.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.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #72


tsutsuji said:
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/earthquake/kkscientist21aug07.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.
 
  • #73


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/kouenroku/20090430.pdf [Broken] (9 pages)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
<h2>1. What caused the Virginia US Earthquake?</h2><p>The Virginia US Earthquake, also known as the Mineral, Virginia earthquake, was caused by a sudden movement of the Earth's crust along a fault line. This fault line, known as the Central Virginia Seismic Zone, is located near the town of Mineral and is capable of producing earthquakes up to a magnitude of 6.0.</p><h2>2. Was the Virginia US Earthquake related to the nearby nuclear plant?</h2><p>No, the Virginia US Earthquake was not related to the nearby nuclear plant. The earthquake occurred about 12 miles from the North Anna Nuclear Power Station, but the plant was designed to withstand earthquakes of up to a magnitude of 6.2. The plant was shut down as a precaution, but no damage or safety concerns were reported.</p><h2>3. Are earthquakes common in Virginia?</h2><p>Earthquakes do occur in Virginia, but they are not as frequent or severe as in other parts of the United States. The Central Virginia Seismic Zone is the most active seismic area in the state, but earthquakes of a magnitude greater than 5.0 are rare.</p><h2>4. Was there any damage from the Virginia US Earthquake?</h2><p>The Virginia US Earthquake caused some minor damage to buildings and roads in the surrounding area. Some chimneys collapsed, and there were reports of cracked walls and foundations. However, there were no reports of major damage or injuries.</p><h2>5. What measures are being taken to ensure the safety of the nuclear plant after the Virginia US Earthquake?</h2><p>The North Anna Nuclear Power Station was shut down for a thorough inspection following the Virginia US Earthquake. The plant's operators also conducted additional seismic assessments and implemented any necessary upgrades to ensure the plant's safety in the event of future earthquakes. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also conducted an independent review and concluded that the plant remained safe to operate.</p>

1. What caused the Virginia US Earthquake?

The Virginia US Earthquake, also known as the Mineral, Virginia earthquake, was caused by a sudden movement of the Earth's crust along a fault line. This fault line, known as the Central Virginia Seismic Zone, is located near the town of Mineral and is capable of producing earthquakes up to a magnitude of 6.0.

2. Was the Virginia US Earthquake related to the nearby nuclear plant?

No, the Virginia US Earthquake was not related to the nearby nuclear plant. The earthquake occurred about 12 miles from the North Anna Nuclear Power Station, but the plant was designed to withstand earthquakes of up to a magnitude of 6.2. The plant was shut down as a precaution, but no damage or safety concerns were reported.

3. Are earthquakes common in Virginia?

Earthquakes do occur in Virginia, but they are not as frequent or severe as in other parts of the United States. The Central Virginia Seismic Zone is the most active seismic area in the state, but earthquakes of a magnitude greater than 5.0 are rare.

4. Was there any damage from the Virginia US Earthquake?

The Virginia US Earthquake caused some minor damage to buildings and roads in the surrounding area. Some chimneys collapsed, and there were reports of cracked walls and foundations. However, there were no reports of major damage or injuries.

5. What measures are being taken to ensure the safety of the nuclear plant after the Virginia US Earthquake?

The North Anna Nuclear Power Station was shut down for a thorough inspection following the Virginia US Earthquake. The plant's operators also conducted additional seismic assessments and implemented any necessary upgrades to ensure the plant's safety in the event of future earthquakes. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also conducted an independent review and concluded that the plant remained safe to operate.

Similar threads

  • Earth Sciences
Replies
1
Views
752
Replies
2
Views
620
Replies
3
Views
694
  • Nuclear Engineering
51
Replies
2K
Views
416K
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
14K
Views
4M
Back
Top