Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, August 30, 2011
Panic Quake "May Have Exceeded" Virginia Nuke Plant's Design Limits
Posted by Goldy on Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:15 AM
I know it's terribly, terribly wrong of me, and I absolutely shouldn't do it, but I'm a horrible person, so...
A Dominion Resources Inc. nuclear power plant in Virginia may have been subjected to ground motion greater than it was designed to withstand in last week’s earthquake, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said.
Dominion notified the agency that a review determined shaking from the 5.8-magnitude temblor “may have exceeded” design limits of the North Anna Power Station, the agency said today in an e-mailed statement. The NRC sent additional inspectors to the plant to assist agency officials in their investigation, the agency said.
Damn me!
Yes, I know it is awfully irresponsible of me to even dare to suggest in the wake of Fukushima that, as our nation considers a dramatic expansion in nuclear power generation, we might also want to reconsider the potential seismic hazards these plants are built to withstand. How terribly unsciency of me. I should just stick to something I know—like lying about Republicans—and leave the real debate entirely in the hands of the nuclear industry spokespeople who know what they're talking about. Bad Goldy.
1
I'm sure glad that Obama wants us to invest in more nuclear power plants as wells as the wonderful XL pipeline.
Our future promises to be so clean and safe!!
Our future promises to be so clean and safe!!
2
That's a fascinating man made of straw you've constructed and torn down there. Sounds even more encouraging that everything went right with this plant if the quake exceeded it's designed limits.
3
You're going to blow your social Studies Class away, Goldy. The jocks and posers won't know what hit them.
4
@2: This. The designed limits are ALWAYS well below what the plant could actually withstand. They do that on purpose.
5
Goldy you also forget all the fracking going on which some cause small earthquakes. You should investigate and see how many fracking are somewhat near nuclear plants.
7
@4 This. And it held up! Everyone wins. "May have been subjected"? So it's conceivable that there was a limit that was exceeded, but they don't have the evidence for it yet.
@6 "I base this on the idea that it supports my idea of how the world works." What the fuck does corruption even have to do with this?
@6 "I base this on the idea that it supports my idea of how the world works." What the fuck does corruption even have to do with this?
8
So, you're speculating based on speculation? Will you clean up the mess when the facts come along, later, or will you ignore them when they don't fit your storyline?
Also, I feel like I should point out that the Fukishima plant survived the earthquake just fine. It was flooding that it couldn't deal with, due to the backup generators and switchgear all being in the basement. If they hadn't made that one stupid design decision we wouldn't still be talking about it, because it would have been a complete non-event...just like this quake.
Between this and the recent hand-wringing post over the Russian launch failure I feel like SLOG has become remarkably anti-technology.
Also, I feel like I should point out that the Fukishima plant survived the earthquake just fine. It was flooding that it couldn't deal with, due to the backup generators and switchgear all being in the basement. If they hadn't made that one stupid design decision we wouldn't still be talking about it, because it would have been a complete non-event...just like this quake.
Between this and the recent hand-wringing post over the Russian launch failure I feel like SLOG has become remarkably anti-technology.
9
@ 8
"Also, I feel like I should point out that the Fukishima plant survived the earthquake just fine. It was flooding that it couldn't deal with"
Untrue. Tsunamis don't cause cracks in the foundations of nuclear reactors.
"Also, I feel like I should point out that the Fukishima plant survived the earthquake just fine. It was flooding that it couldn't deal with"
Untrue. Tsunamis don't cause cracks in the foundations of nuclear reactors.
11
@ 10 Perhaps, but it doesn't change that your statement isn't true and it doesn't imply that cracks couldn't cause a meltdown.
12
@11: To know that we'd have to know how serious the cracks are. Concrete foundations normally experience some cracking. It's not alway structurally important.
13
@8, I don't have earthquake insurance. If my house survives the shaking, but then burns down due to an uncontrolled quake-caused fire that started down the street, my insurance won't cover me, because under their policy, my house did not survive the quake. Likewise, Fukushima did not survive the quake undamaged, because the causes of the meltdown were all quake related.
Second, I haven't been "speculating." Folks get pissed off here when I post links to news stories that can somehow be perceived as "anti-nuclear" in that they raise questions about nuclear safety. But I've actually done very little editorializing on this subject, other than throwing in a little sarcasm now and then.
The lesson I would hope we learn from North Anna is not that we can't safely build nuke plants, but that we can't safely build nuke plants by assuming that they need merely survive earthquakes a couple of tenths of a magnitude above any previously recorded quake. And by the way, that's the lesson to learn from Fukushima, where the both the quake and the tsunami were significantly large than any before in that region in recorded history.
But this is a lesson that would increase nuke plant construction costs, so it's not a lesson that the industry wants learned.
Second, I haven't been "speculating." Folks get pissed off here when I post links to news stories that can somehow be perceived as "anti-nuclear" in that they raise questions about nuclear safety. But I've actually done very little editorializing on this subject, other than throwing in a little sarcasm now and then.
The lesson I would hope we learn from North Anna is not that we can't safely build nuke plants, but that we can't safely build nuke plants by assuming that they need merely survive earthquakes a couple of tenths of a magnitude above any previously recorded quake. And by the way, that's the lesson to learn from Fukushima, where the both the quake and the tsunami were significantly large than any before in that region in recorded history.
But this is a lesson that would increase nuke plant construction costs, so it's not a lesson that the industry wants learned.
14
@12 In the Fukushima case we know these cracks allowed contaminated water to escape the reactor enclosure.
16
@13 - "I've actually done very little editorializing on this subject"
Good stuff. You should take this act on the road.
Good stuff. You should take this act on the road.
17
@8: Also, I feel like I should point out that the Fukishima plant survived the earthquake just fine.
Lies.
It is not known how much damage was due to the earthquake, because much of the plant is inaccessible. The first radiation alarm at the plant went off BEFORE the tsunami hit the plant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19…
Quote:
And it's very much likely that the numerous water pipes were damaged during the earthquake, which would have impeded cooling operations regardless of the availability of electric power to the water pumps:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/20…
It is also not clear what damage has occurred at the spent fuel pools, and whether that damage is due to the earthquake, or hydrogen explosions, or a combination. Keep in mind that we're talking about massive amounts (thousands of tons) of extremely heavy material (water) being shaken violently about in rather brittle concrete structures.
It was flooding that it couldn't deal with, due to the backup generators and switchgear all being in the basement. If they hadn't made that one stupid design decision we wouldn't still be talking about it, because it would have been a complete non-event...just like this quake.
More lies. That "one stupid design decision" was a cascading series of human hubris and economic compromise that had little or nothing at all to do with this specific plant, which is not of Japanese design, but is an American design which was modified to make it MORE robust than comparable Mark I units in the United States. The "one stupid design decision" had nothing at all to do with earthquake resilience or tsunami issues. If there was a singular human error, it was the decision to pursue nuclear fission at an industrial scale.
More...
Lies.
It is not known how much damage was due to the earthquake, because much of the plant is inaccessible. The first radiation alarm at the plant went off BEFORE the tsunami hit the plant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19…
Quote:
A monitoring post on the perimeter of the plant about 1.5 kilometers (1 mile) from the No. 1 reactor went off at 3:29 p.m., minutes before the station was overwhelmed by the tsunami that knocked out backup power that kept reactor cooling systems running, according to documents supplied by the company. The monitor was set to go off at high levels of radiation, an official said.
...
Among the documents, the pressure and water level inside of No. 1 reactor inner vessel fluctuated after the earthquake hit at 2:46 p.m. Most of the readings for the No. 1 reactor go blank a little after 3:30 p.m. when the waves swamped the plant.
And it's very much likely that the numerous water pipes were damaged during the earthquake, which would have impeded cooling operations regardless of the availability of electric power to the water pumps:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/20…
One worker, a maintenance engineer in his late twenties who was at the Fukushima complex on March 11, recalls hissing and leaking pipes. “I personally saw pipes that came apart and I assume that there were many more that had been broken throughout the plant. There’s no doubt that the earthquake did a lot of damage inside the plant," he said. "There were definitely leaking pipes, but we don’t know which pipes – that has to be investigated. I also saw that part of the wall of the turbine building for Unit 1 had come away. That crack might have affected the reactor.”
It is also not clear what damage has occurred at the spent fuel pools, and whether that damage is due to the earthquake, or hydrogen explosions, or a combination. Keep in mind that we're talking about massive amounts (thousands of tons) of extremely heavy material (water) being shaken violently about in rather brittle concrete structures.
It was flooding that it couldn't deal with, due to the backup generators and switchgear all being in the basement. If they hadn't made that one stupid design decision we wouldn't still be talking about it, because it would have been a complete non-event...just like this quake.
More lies. That "one stupid design decision" was a cascading series of human hubris and economic compromise that had little or nothing at all to do with this specific plant, which is not of Japanese design, but is an American design which was modified to make it MORE robust than comparable Mark I units in the United States. The "one stupid design decision" had nothing at all to do with earthquake resilience or tsunami issues. If there was a singular human error, it was the decision to pursue nuclear fission at an industrial scale.
18
@10: More lies.
"Partial meltdown?"
TMI was a "partial meltdown" and the core was contained within the reactor
Fukushima is a total meltdown, according to TEPCO's own models:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Lar…
The cores have likely melted through the bottom of the reactor vessel at THREE co-sited reactors, and breached containment, according to NISA. This is corroborated by and inability to maintain water levels inside the reactor vessel, and significant amounts of accumulated water in primary containment, which indicates significant leakage through the bottom of the RPV.
"Partial meltdown?"
TMI was a "partial meltdown" and the core was contained within the reactor
Fukushima is a total meltdown, according to TEPCO's own models:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Lar…
The cores have likely melted through the bottom of the reactor vessel at THREE co-sited reactors, and breached containment, according to NISA. This is corroborated by and inability to maintain water levels inside the reactor vessel, and significant amounts of accumulated water in primary containment, which indicates significant leakage through the bottom of the RPV.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
Barack Obama Smoked a Lot of Pot as a Young Man by Paul Constant
-
The Limits of Keynesianism by Charles Mudede
-
Rural America by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS