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.
  • #1
QuantumPion
Science Advisor
Gold Member
902
42
Virginia US Earthquake -- Nuclear Plant

The earthquake that just hit the east coast was centered on Mineral, VA, right where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anna_Nuclear_Generating_Station" [Broken] is. :uhh:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2


QuantumPion said:
The earthquake that just hit the east coast was centered on Mineral, VA, right where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anna_Nuclear_Generating_Station" [Broken] is. :uhh:
From reuters:
Traffic lights were knocked out throughout Washington, and units at a nuclear power plant in Virginia went off line by the quake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3


QuantumPion said:
The earthquake that just hit the east coast was centered on Mineral, VA, right where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anna_Nuclear_Generating_Station" [Broken] is. :uhh:

It was 5.9:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/quakes_all.php [Broken]

Edit: I am 100 % sure it was 5.9 a while ago. Just seconds ago they have updated it:
MAP 5.8 2011/08/23 17:51:04 37.936 -77.933 6.0 8 km ( 5 mi) SSW of Mineral, VA
So it's now 5.8.

Edit 2: And back to 5.9:
MAP 5.9 2011/08/23 17:51:03 37.975 -77.969 1.0 6 km ( 4 mi) SSE of Louisa, VA

The Operating Basis Earthquake for North Anna is 0.06 g (5.4 on
the Richter Scale) and the Design Basis Earthquake for North Anna is 0.12 g (5.9 on the Richter Scale).
(year 2003)

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0334/ML033440194.pdf
http://www.expertglossary.com/definition/operating-basis-earthquake-obe
http://www.expertglossary.com/water/definition/design-basis-earthquake-dbe

This means there could be some damage but not for components important for safety.
(fingers crossed) :smile:
(If they have updated their earthquake parameters since 2003 the situation could be even better.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4


North Anna has upgraded the event from an unusual event to an alert. They are currently running on diesels.

They upgraded to an alert due loss of offsite power and having to shut down 1 out of 4 diesels. Everything else appears to be working normally.
 
Last edited:
  • #5


from http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/23/virginia.quake.nuclear/" [Broken] about North Anna quote:
"Amanda Reidelbach, an emergency management spokeswoman for Louisa County, said the plant vented steam, but there was no release of radioactive material."

Why are they venting steam? WTH? I hope it's just a misreporting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6


shadowncs said:
from http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/23/virginia.quake.nuclear/" [Broken] about North Anna quote:
"Amanda Reidelbach, an emergency management spokeswoman for Louisa County, said the plant vented steam, but there was no release of radioactive material."

Why are they venting steam? WTH? I hope it's just a misreporting.

It's secondary steam, that is a normal occurrence with trips from full power. All the steam that was going to the turbine has to go somewhere! Here's a youtube clip of what it looks like (at Surry, same design as North Anna):

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7


I am curious about the spent fuel pools. They are not required to have back-up power and North Anna has some 1200 tons of spent fuel.
 
  • #8


QuantumPion said:
...


Thanks, makes sense. That video is awesome and without you explaining would have been scary as hell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9


ChernobylMary said:
I am curious about the spent fuel pools. They are not required to have back-up power and North Anna has some 1200 tons of spent fuel.

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.
 
  • #10


""Why are they venting steam? ""

The steam generators are vented to atmosphere through relatively small valves in order to carry away decay heat when the turbine and condenser are unavailable as when you are starting up or shutting down the plant , or when the grid goes away.
They're called " Steam Dump to Atmosphere" valves and they're a normal means of temperature control when plant is in between cold shutdown and power operation - a state often called "hot shutdown".. it's very normal.

Another source of steam is the exhaust pipes from the Terry Turbines that supply the makeup water to the steam generators. Ours were adjacent the Steam Dump to Atmosphere silencers.


The water in the steam generators is ultra purified. It is separated from the reactor coolant water by the steam generator tubes.
You could drink that condensed steam except that ultra pure demineralized water gives you a tummy-ache because it is so mineral free it depletes your electrolytes.

Steam is normal. Do not be alarmed by that. The plant is capable of impressive displays of it, and shouild a steam generator relief valve have opened as a result of grid going down - well - that's quite noisy..
The diesels started, they're dumping steam, sounds like they're doing fine.
But a loss of grid doesn't happen every day - so I'm sure it's a bit hectic there just now. Pray everything goes smooth for them.

When you lose grid the turbine piping has to cool down without help of main condensate pumps and that's sometimes a bit noisy. If you've ever heard an old steam heating radiator creak and clank - imagne one with twenty inch pipes.

oops i see it's been handled... that youtube looks to me more like a relief valve than steam dump to atmosphere.. but i don't know that plant.

old jim
 
  • #12


To clarify, the link says that the spent fuel ponds are not required to have back up power, which is not the same as saying they don't have back-up power.
 
  • #13


ChernobylMary said:
To clarify, the link says that the spent fuel ponds are not required to have back up power, which is not the same as saying they don't have back-up power.
That's not entirely correct. That POGO article is a bit misleading.

The pools were originally designed for less fuel, but they re-racked to increase capacity. Originally, the US government was going to take the spent fuel and reprocess. Well, that didn't happen. Then the US DOE was going to build a final repository, and that hasn't happened. Now, utilities like the one operating North Anna put spent fuel in dry storage pending some government resolution.

The site is required to main coolability of the spent fuel pool. That pretty much guarantees that the pool cooling system has backup power. They aren't required to have an exclusive (independent) back up power system - but that doesn't mean that they don't have back up power.

Also, the steam turbine is part of the secondary system which does not contain radioactive water, unless the steam generator tubes leak. North Anna replaced steam generators, Unit 1 in 1993 and Unit 2 in 1995, in order to remove the original SG tubing, which was prone to IGSCC.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Off-site power appears to have been restored.

http://dom.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1015
 
  • #15


FYI

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS DUE TO SEISMIC EVENT
At 2:22 p.m. (EDT) on August 23, 2011, NRC entered the Monitoring Mode following the declaration of an ALERT at the North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, located in Virginia, at 2:03 p.m. The emergency was declared following a seismic event near the North Anna station. Both North Anna units experienced reactor trips and a loss of all offsite alternating current (AC) power (LOOP) to the emergency buses. The cause of the reactor trips and LOOP are being investigated. The on-site emergency diesel generators (EDGs) initially started and powered the station emergency buses. Subsequently, one of the EDGs was shutdown due to a diesel coolant leak. Another diesel generator was started and all emergency buses continue to be powered.

from - http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1123/ML112360103.pdf

See also - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/en.html#en47181
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16


jim hardy said:
oops i see it's been handled... that youtube looks to me more like a relief valve than steam dump to atmosphere.. but i don't know that plant.

old jim

For a trip where condenser vacuum is lost, full steam flow has to be vented to atmosphere. Condenser vacuum was lost because they lost offsite power.
 
  • #17


QuantumPion said:
For a trip where condenser vacuum is lost, full steam flow has to be vented to atmosphere. Condenser vacuum was lost because they lost offsite power.
Sounds like that's another possible accident problem and offsite dependency that could be avoided with a nuclear plant design based on the Brayton cycle? Yes I know the traditional PWR/BWR doesn't generate high enough temperatures, but other designs could.
 
  • #18


mheslep said:
Sounds like that's another possible accident problem and offsite dependency that could be avoided with a nuclear plant design based on the Brayton cycle? Yes I know the traditional PWR/BWR doesn't generate high enough temperatures, but other designs could.

It's not an accident problem, it's simply the design of the system.

A gas cooled reactor using the Brayton cycle would still have to have a way to dump decay heat on a trip, which would involve venting gas or steam to the atmosphere.

I don't understand your comment about LWR's not generating high enough temperatures for a Brayton cycle. You may be confusing with rankine cycle with superheated steam, which is true that most LWR's cannot produce superheated steam.
 
  • #19


mheslep said:
Sounds like that's another possible accident problem and offsite dependency that could be avoided with a nuclear plant design based on the Brayton cycle? Yes I know the traditional PWR/BWR doesn't generate high enough temperatures, but other designs could.

The reason for having to use the atmosphere as a heat sink is the fact that the ordinary heat sink (=sea / cooling tower) is lost due to stoppage of the condenser cooling pumps. The same goes for any nuclear plant no matter what the cycle used: if you lose the power needed for utilizing the normal heat sink, you need to use an alternative one. In a PWR, the most straightforward alternative heat sink is to blow secondary steam out to the atmosphere and refill the steam generators with fresh water; in a BWR the primary steam is blown to the containment suppression pool and the primary circuit is refilled with fresh weater. An isolation condenser in a BWR makes it possible to use the same decay heat removal method as a PWR.

Needing power for emergency feedwater pumps to replace the lost inventory is not "another" offsite dependency: that's exactly the reason power is needed after the shutdown at all.
 
  • #20


QuantumPion said:
It's not an accident problem, it's simply the design of the system.

A gas cooled reactor using the Brayton cycle would still have to have a way to dump decay heat on a trip, which would involve venting gas or steam to the atmosphere.
The issue here, as I think I understand it, is that with the Rankine a condenser is required and that when the condenser stops the system has no way of continuing to transfer heat to the turbine and removing energy (decay heat) from the system. I don't see the need for a condensor in a Brayton. Thus such a system could could continue running turbine at lower power and bleeding off energy after a reactor trip through the normal path.

I don't understand your comment about LWR's not generating high enough temperatures for a Brayton cycle. You may be confusing with rankine cycle with superheated steam, which is true that most LWR's cannot produce superheated steam.
Well IIRC 300K above ambient is typical for an LWR, where as a practical Brayton might run 700K above ambient. And I'm assuming, most likely, He as the gas. Under what trip circumstances He in a Brayton need to be vented?
 
  • #21


rmattila said:
The reason for having to use the atmosphere as a heat sink is the fact that the ordinary heat sink (=sea / cooling tower) is lost due to stoppage of the condenser cooling pumps. The same goes for any nuclear plant no matter what the cycle used: if you lose the power needed for utilizing the normal heat sink, you need to use an alternative one.
But not necessarily an active one, i.e. active heat removal via pumps. With a molten salt (MS) reactor the idea upon trip is to simply gravity feed the MS to a dump tank, where because of the high temperature (~1000K) it dissipates heat to ambient rapidly and passively. A MSR may have other problems, but a passive, independent shut down is not one of them.
 
  • #22


Thanks for all the great information.

If my understanding is correct, the ground acceleration exceeded the operational basis and this can account for the damage which caused the loss of offsite power.

The area that I know lacks clarity in my mind is the acceleration relative to design basis. It is my understanding that the design basis was only slightly exceeded, and since safety systems are typically over-engineered, there was probably no dangerous structural damage (though I have read of small cracks in the containment building that are not leaking radiation).

furthermore, it is my understanding that this was the strongest quake ever measured in the area, so such an event could not have been predicted by the NRC or the plant designers.

However, now that such a powerful quake is known to be a certainty in the area of the North Anna plant, will it be necessary to either retrofit or decommission the plant?
 
  • #23


swl said:
... the ground acceleration exceeded the operational basis and this can account for the damage which caused the loss of offsite power...

I'm pretty sure that 'ground acceleration' as a single value is not meaningful (in the context of the damage it can cause) without the corresponding frequency. In other words, a high acceleration at a high frequency may be much less damaging than a lesser acceleration at a low frequency. The seismic design is developed from a ground response spectrum, not a single 'g' value. Maybe someone with seismic design expertise could chime in here.
 
  • #24


gmax137 said:
I'm pretty sure that 'ground acceleration' as a single value is not meaningful (in the context of the damage it can cause) without the corresponding frequency. In other words, a high acceleration at a high frequency may be much less damaging than a lesser acceleration at a low frequency. The seismic design is developed from a ground response spectrum, not a single 'g' value. Maybe someone with seismic design expertise could chime in here.

Yes, it turns out the plant was designed to withstand earthquakes with a long wavelength which are characteristic of west-coast earthquakes. However this earthquake was a short wavelength one, which is why the concern over design basis limits. Note that it is only the aux building sensors which may have exceeded the design basis earthquake, not the whole plant.

Another interesting tidbit: the dry storage casks moved several inches. Or from what I've been told, the casks remained stationary while the ground underneath them moved!

Here is a video in the Richmond Times Dispatch showing a brief tour inside the plant, if you've ever been curious what it looks like:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news-video/2011/sep/02/2/a-post-earthquake-tour-of-north-anna-nuc-99830-vi-30316/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25


I've been water skiing in lake Anna, adjacent North Anna. It is remarkable how un-intrusive a couple GW of nuclear plant is to lake recreation.
 
  • #26


mheslep said:
I've been water skiing in lake Anna, adjacent North Anna. It is remarkable how un-intrusive a couple GW of nuclear plant is to lake recreation.

So how do you like the lake that wouldn't of been if not for the North Anna NNP?
 
  • #27


Argentum Vulpes said:
So how do you like the lake that wouldn't of been if not for the North Anna NNP?

More, or less than the wildlife, valleys and forests submerged by the lake?
 
  • #29


swl said:
More, or less than the wildlife, valleys and forests submerged by the lake?
Valleys? The lake is 13K acres, mostly shallow and 80' at its deepest. The area is in the Piedmont of Virginia. A large colony of beavers might have accomplished half as much 500 years ago. Still, the lake should be credited to the total area required by the NA plant.
 
  • #31
  • #33


nteresting meeting.

Dominion results show that the single values of 0.06g OBE and 0.12g DBE were exceeded at points along the frequency spectrum of the earthquake. Further their CAV limit was also exceeded (I'm goiung to need to look that up).

Based on the nature and number of questions raised by NRC staff, Dominion is going to be hard pressed to get Unit 1 up and running in the immediate future. NRC still has no idea what form of submittal or documentation they will require from ominion as a prerequisite to restart.

Basically Dominion made a case for restart after they complete inspections and surveilance tests based on the following points:

  1. The earthquake was of short duration and the total energy was low compared to what would be seen from a full OBE or DBE earthquake spectrum
  2. The actual event spectrum was at a level where they believe that simple non-commercial structures would have a safety margin factor of 3 before damage to stuctures would be expected.
  3. Industrial buildings and seismically qualified systems structures and components would have even greater margins. Therefor, they would expect no damage.
  4. Their inspections and tests have not detected any functional damage in non-safety or safety systems.
  5. They have seen no damage in non-safety equipment which would be considered at the lowest levels of standards such as building codes that cover domestic plumbing and waste systems. Dominion believes this gives credence to believe there is no hidden damage in safety systems.
  6. Unit 2 is off line for refueling now and will undergo a complete set of physical and surveilance tests for 100% of the systems and a complete civil engineering assesment of the structures. They believe this will allow restart of Unit 1 pending the same level of testing in 2012 during the next refueling outage.

Dominion managemment and NRC management at the table were talking in terms of restarting unit 1 in a matter of weeks or a few months. The staff that asked questions sounded like they were gearing up for a review that could take much longer. The KK plant in Japan actually had visible damage from an earthquake and was off line for years. Several of the NRC technical staff came to the microphone giving out there wishlists for information that sounded like licensing a new plant. North Anna may be held ransom to resolve the GSI-199 issue and the Fukushima lessons learned.

Only one member of the public spoke - Paul Gunther for those who know the intervenors out there. He raised the issue of buried piping.


Did anyone else listen in? What was your take?
 
  • #34


NUCENG said:
...North Anna may be held ransom to resolve the GSI-199 issue and the Fukushima lessons learned...
I can't see how this NRC action can resolve either beyond the specific case of Dominion's North Anna. US new plant construction is dead, and I can't imagine any major NRC action against the existing 104 US plants.
 
  • #35


I listened for a while although I didn't get many of the jargon (what is level 4 / level 6 status?)
It really sounded to me like there is no damage that would prevent it to go online... one of the important things they proved is that the fuel is undamaged using the chemistry of primary coolant.

There were some issues that were probably not handled very confidently, like they kept on stating that because the non-security related piping was checked and found problem-free then the security related piping was assumed to be problem-free. In an ideal world it makes sense but how about the stress that was in the pipes while earthquake hit?

I also noticed that NRC stated they don't (yet) have a set of requirements for approving online status after a beyond-design-basis event and one of the NRC guys said that the proposed timeline for restarting No1 is too short for them to come up with the proof that No1 can be restarted safely which sounded right to me.

Oh and one more thing - the diesel generator was manually shut down after a coolant leak from a gasket and they felt it's better to shut it down. It is assumed that a torquing technique was misused for that gasket and the other generators didn't exhibit the issue.

Apologies for any mistakes, I was multitasking...
 
<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
755
Replies
2
Views
622
Replies
3
Views
698
  • 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