Xpost on the Anna Nuclear plant

[nadinbrzezinski]

(Reuters) - The largest earthquake to hit the East Coast of the United States in 67 years raised concerns on Tuesday about the safety of the country's nuclear power plants.

The 5.8 magnitude quake's epicenter was just a few miles from the two-reactor North Anna nuclear power plant operated by Dominion Resources in Mineral, Virginia, 80 miles southwest of Washington.

The plant lost power and automatically halted operations after the quake. While a Dominion spokesman reported no "major" damage to the facility, three diesel generators were required to kick in and keep the reactors' radioactive cores cool. A fourth diesel unit failed.

While nuclear power plants can operate safely on back-up power, failure of generators was a key reason for the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant after a 9.0 magnitude quake and tsunami in March.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1803745

Here there might be some interest and yes, sarcasm.

[madokie]

1. The biggest boondoggle ever is/was building nuclear power plants

We would have been just fine without the dangers that they pose. If one wants to think they don't pose much danger look no further than Russia or Japan. A large swatch of Russia is uninhabitable by humans and will be for years. At some point parts of northeast Japan will be cordoned off too. We've had two near misses already here, one at TMI and the other at Davis-Besse. According to this what is in this link I have here we've had 5 near misses in total. Too damn many I know that.

Chilling how close this one was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Oh goody... no really

Virginia nuke plant “venting steam” — Spokesman says “no release of radioactive material” (PHOTO & VIDEO)

http://enenews.com/virginia-nuke-plant-venting-steam-spokesman-says-no-release-of-radioactive-material-video

Let's all hope it is nothing, really, but some of the comments ARE HILARIOUS...

and yes, FAMILIAR.

dharmasyd
August 23, 2011 at 11:39 pm Log in to Reply
Geez! This sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before?

Bobby1
August 23, 2011 at 11:41 pm Log in to Reply
Don’t worry. That steam is as safe as eating 10,000 bananas on a plane from New York to Tokyo.

Flapdoodle
August 24, 2011 at 12:13 am Log in to Reply
LOL Or three trips through a TSA scanner

anne
August 24, 2011 at 12:37 am Log in to Reply
Or 100 cat scans! Yikes!!!

Jebus
August 24, 2011 at 1:24 am Log in to Reply
Or one fukushima meltdown…

[FBaggins]

3. The comments ARE "hilarious" because they highlight how little people understand the topic.

This is a PWR folks. That's normal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ItIfVXYvKg

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. No they are hilarious for other reasons

but that's ok...

Have a good day...

By the way Fuku went EXACTLY as you said it would go... in fact it is all safe and normal and there is absolutely no ongoing disaster.

:hi:

[FBaggins]

5. Nah... that's pretty much the main reason.

Some people just lose touch with reality and jump to paranoia wherever nuclear power is concerned.

I can give you a great example. There was some flooding near a couple reactors a few weeks ago. Flooding that they're easily designed to handle but that hardly mattered. Yet instead we saw predictions of "20 times as bad as Fukushima" and "we almost lost Nebraska" etc. Why... there was even this one guy who read that floodwaters had risen to the base of some spent-fuel casks (that were chained to even more massive concrete pads) and tried to tell us that the best case scenario at that point was that people would have to search downstream for these multi-hundred-thousand-pound casks because (get this) he once stood in knee-deep running water and really knew how much force that was.

Can you believe that? Hilarious indeed. :)

By the way... that what should follow after your "Fuku went EXACTLY as you said it would go" crack. An example or two where it didn't.

For the record, I never once said that there was nothing to worry about. What I did do was correct ridiculous positions to the effect that it was "Chernobyl on steroids" and hundreds of thousands of lives would be lost.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Alas IT IS Chernobyl on steorids

and in the aggregate over the next 20 years we will see lives lost... not that you will ever admit to that.

Whatever,

It is all well at the Fukushima Daichi plant, and there was no meltdown... yup.

Eat your bananas already!

As to those plants, they were TESTED.

As to the Anna Plant it is being tested, and then there is Irene.

Oh and the concern is not mine only, it is also among those ignorant and exaggerating folks at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.... it is in the top ten for risks...

Have a really good day.

[FBaggins]

7. "And then there is Irene"... doesn't that just prove my point?

Not that you'll see the humor of course... but to think that a reactor scores of miles inland is endangered by what is (by then) a minor hurricane (and inland would be little more than a summer thunderstorm) is ridiculous. Yes... I saw you speculate that this earthquake that hardly damaged residential contruction in the area could somehow have weakened a nuclear reactor enough that Irene could be a danger.

Frankly, that's nuts.

Oh and the concern is not mine only, it is also among those ignorant and exaggerating folks at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.... it is in the top ten for risks...

Lol! What is? The risk of earthquake causing core damage to North Anna? Yeah... it's on the top ten at roughly one chance in 22,000 each year. I think it's fair to say that their concern is just a tiny bit lower than yours.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Read the NRC report and then chuckle a lottle more

or for that matter the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS.

worst case scenario... it goes critical... you will tell us how it will not fail, and how it cannot go through the vesel and to eat our banananas, and that Daichi could never fail... I mean it WAS AN AMERICAN REACTOR!

Yup

As to Irene damaging this inland, nope, but there are a few others that are NOT inland and ARE in the top ten list for the exaggerating and unknowing folks at the NRC.

YUP. you will keep laughing it up...

Now let me see about that granite counter top, WITH BANANAS no less. yup...

And yes I need to add a few transcontinental flights yup... with plenty of bananas, and BRAZIL NUTS

[FBaggins]

9. You going to link to that report?

Or just pretend that it exists and says what you claim it says?

worst case scenario... it goes critical...

Um... nope. Reactors go critical all the time. One would think that we could at least get the right terminology into you by now. :)

As for all the B.E.D.-type references. The hilarious point is that you get scared of doses that are below those levels (some way below those levels as with your rant on iodine in milk here in the states).

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I think that since you claim to be a member of the industry

you know of it and can find it yourself. It is the most recent one done after Daichi. Hey even Rachel Maddow spoke of it yesterday. Yep another ignorant fool... yup

Now let me go get my nuts.

And my rant was on point... but alas I don't work for the industry and I know industrial accidents happen... alas some are worst than others.

[FBaggins]

11. Sorry... wrong yet again.

I never claimed to be a member of the industry. Nor did I claim that Fukushima couldn't or wouldn't melt down... or that there was nothing to worry about... or that it would all go away. Hint - if you can only debate strawmen, it's time to reevaluate your own position. (Or better yet, when you resort to the old "Oh yeah? Well wait until I'm actually right and then you'll have trouble saying I wasn't right" as in your #8) :)

But I can tell you that there is no report indicating a danger from earthquake or hurricane to any US reactor that justifies the paranoia we were discussing. There is no "concern" for North Anna above what I explained.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. So rachel madow imagined the threat report too

Okie dokie...

I see.

We all imagine.

So you don't work in it, you are still an apologist... and one of the worst.

[FBaggins]

13. Nope. You just blew it all out of proportion.

Being the 7th slowest runner in the final heat of the olympics doen't mean that the runner is slow. She can accurately report that North Anna is 7th on the list of the reactors most at risk from earthquake (and I posted it here before she ever opened her mouth).

North Anna being 7th on the earthquake danger list doesn't change the fact that it was a 1 in 22,000+ chance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Yep, whatever

even if we had a worst case scenario, history is prologue, you will still put head in sand.

By the way... EXPERTS are concerned this quake WAS CLOSE to design parameters... ONE FRACKING REASON... it was a SURFACE QUAKE.

If nothing else it should lead to a retrofit to at LEAST one degree higher. given Madrid, to 8 would be logical

Keep chirping.

[FBaggins]

21. So let's see if I've got this straight.

Reactors usually have "design parameters" tied to the worst earthquake ever recorded for that area. That's about what this earthquake was and the reactors shrugged it off without any concern... but your takeway lesson from the event is that they should be designed to handle something a couple hundred times as powerfull?

You should look up the definition for παράνοια :)

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Actually, raising it to an 8 would leave a negative safety factor for previous quakes.

As the poster mentioned, 2 of the 3 recurring quakes on the NMSZ exceeded 8.0. They rang church bells in chicago.

[FBaggins]

43. Not for that area.

Central VA isn't KY/IN/IL.

This was about the largest earthquake in recorded history in the area. It's certainly wise to plan for a larger on, but not one hundreds of times as large.

[SpoonFed]

15. Aw...

after your "Fuku went EXACTLY as you said it would go" crack.

Did that hurt your feelings? Fuku did go exactly as you said it would!
Otherwise, you might have corrected some of your incorrect and misleading statements on the subject, right?
:sarcasm:

For the record, you have corrected next to nothing. What you have done is post continuous misleading or opinion pieces that back the global nuke filth industry and events like Fuku.

[FBaggins]

16. Put up or shut up.

Of course... you are incapable of doing either.

But at least that's entertaining.

[SpoonFed]

17. I leave most of the fun to the casual observer...

of the DU archives from March, but for today´s amusement, I will point out this particular gem... from about one month after the start of the accident.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=288851&mesg_id=288902

In just this one single post, your incorrect assessment of reality concludes:

the accident is pretty much over by most standards (wrong, obviously it is 5+ months later)
the radioactive release into the ocean with continue for a number of weeks (wrong, try months or years)
the filth is not getting into water and/or livestock, etc (wrong, contamination continues throughout Japan as I write this)
everything is fine since they are selling milk again (wrong, widespread contamination and poisoning reports continue to pile up)
Chernobyl was many times worse (wrong, even if only measured in economic terms)

and your language and theme of denial and downplaying include:

levels are dropping pretty rapidly (wrong, possibly plausible if you were believing TEPCOs misinformation at the time, wrong in respect to reality)
declaring radioactive filth is not contaminating food supplies (wrong, scandalous)
that the disaster and its mitigation are coming to a conclusion

so... uh... who gets to shut up?

[SpoonFed]

18. And before you try to get into it some more...

read the first sentence one of your message:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=278128&mesg_id=278144

[FBaggins]

20. Why?

The sentence accurately reflects Fledermaus' error. He was trying to spin that the design of Fukushima and the design of Chernobyl were essentially the same. That did make him look ridiculous.

Thank whatever you hold holy that they weren't similar designs. If they had been, Japan would have widespread radiation sickness and death. It would have been several times as bad as Chernobyl.

[FBaggins]

19. The answer to your last question is clearly “you”. Hint… it’s still a straw man if...

...you link to a post and then manipulate it so that it no longer says the same thing.

But let’s take them one at a time and see if you have the courage to face up to what you did.

We’ll start with the context (since that’s always important). This thread was part of the ongoing conversation comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl. The two most common canards from that period are both represented:

* – Fukushima is now a seven like Chernobyl so it must be as bad (which of course is nonsense) - and

* – Even if Fukushima hasn’t currently released as much radiation as Chernobyl, “it’s not over yet”

Ok… on to your claims

the accident is pretty much over by most standards (wrong, obviously it is 5+ months later)

Not “obviously wrong” at all. In fact, every measurement shows that it was exactly correct. It’s stunning that you’re blind to this. Look at any measure of the total release from Fukushima and you’ll see that well over 90% of the release occurred in the first several days… and this post was a month later. I left wiggle room (“What we don't know is whether what's left will be 10% of what has been released... or 20 or 30%...") but it hasn’t been even that high.

The point was not “the reactor damage is fixed and they’ll be operating again at full power within the week”… it was to refute the second position cited above. When comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl, Fukushima is almost “done”. When we look back 20 years from now at whatever the final figure is… the vast bulk of it is already out. And again, that was exactly correct. We can disagree whether the 700,000 TBq figure is correct figure (or 600,000 or 500,000 more recently), but Chernobyl was over five million TBq.

And it wasn’t even a hard prediction. It was a simple scientific fact - absent some new disaster (as I said in that post). The shorter half-life elements were dying out. Decay heat was necessarily down substantially so there wouldn’t be further significant venting.

the radioactive release into the ocean with continue for a number of weeks (wrong, try months or years)

Wrong again. The large leaks to the sea were stopped within weeks.

the filth is not getting into water and/or livestock, etc (wrong, contamination continues throughout Japan as I write this)

Your first serious twisting. I never said that. I said that the remaining release (the leaking water) wasn’t contributing to the contamination of drinking water (etc) because it was going into the ocean (not a good thing, but not Tokyo's drinking water either). And it wasn’t. The contamination that “continues throught Japan as I write this” is almost entirely from the material that was released in those first few days. It shows up over time depending on the agricultural cycle, not because new cesium is leaking out. You find it in milk first because the cows are eating the contaminated grass and milk from that grass is produced shortly thereafter. It takes longer for that same cesium to show up in meat because it has to accumulate in the cow over time. So a cow slaughtered two weeks after the event wouldn’t have the same contamination from the same field as one slaughtered last month. It doesn’t show up in rice at that point because it wasn’t time to harvest the rice.

I clearly said “The amount of material released in ways that could end up on land has fallen significantly and while it's not "over", it's not going to appreciably increase detected levels in milk/cattle/crops/etc.”. IOW, the contamination you see now (and will see for some time) is virtually all from the releases prior to that post.

So you’re now 0 for 3.

everything is fine since they are selling milk again (wrong, widespread contamination and poisoning reports continue to pile up)

More twisting (you’ve got to ask yourself why you think you’re right if you can’t face what people actually said). It had nothing whatsoever to do with “everything is fine”. Once again, this was a comparison to Chernobyl. The worst milk contamination readings never approached what happened in Chernobyl for much longer.

This has never been about "everything is fine"... it's "nothing has been close to as bad as the fearmongers would have you believe". Yes, there has been contamination, but nothing close to levels that science considers particularly dangerous.

Chernobyl was many times worse (wrong, even if only measured in economic terms)

Flat wrong. Chernobyl not only released roughly ten times as much radioactive material, a higher percentage of that material was in longer-lived isotopes and (as Arnie has pointed out correctly) a high percentage of that release was made when the prevailing winds took it out to sea instead of over populated areas. The combination of those three alone means that these two aren't in the same ballpark at all. There has been no measure of activity or exposure or dose that has come anywhere close to what was measured at Chernobyl.

so... uh... who gets to shut up?

Uh… that would be you. Sorry.

Feel free to try again. I know of at least a couple things that I got wrong around that time (and at least a couple where I mistakenly took Arnie’s statement as accurate and thus drew incorrect conclusions). You’re bound to find one eventually. But not so far. Best of luck!

[SpoonFed]

22. tl;dr Frodo is never wrong. *yawn* n/t

[FBaggins]

23. You think I'm shocked that you can't respond?

Then you haven't been paying attention to your own M.O.

You didn't even read it, did you? :rofl:

[SpoonFed]

24. Respond?

Is that what you call your attempt to make yourself feel better after the fact to the crap you wrote in April?

I think it is pretty clear to anyone that you cant for the life of you admit that you have been wrong (even ONCE) during this whole disaster and you certainly wont admit that you have a penchance for downplaying the radioactive consequences of Nukushima.

Not only that, your frail ego requires you attempt to get the last word in edge wise even when you should have been disgraced by your previous conduct. You are clearly not here to discuss and you certainly arent hear to correct (your own mistakes and shortcomings)...

So... what, you want anyone to take you seriously? I think I have given you enough of an audience for quite a while,
maybe a crawl back into the hobbit hole is in order?

[FBaggins]

25. Yeah. You know... like try to prove you had a clue.

Rather than just repeating the claim.

I think it is pretty clear to anyone that you cant for the life of you admit that you have been wrong (even ONCE)

Again. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong (and have done so here in the past)... but that doesn't mean that you get to imagine it into some post that has been clearly proven to be correct.

Not only that, your frail ego

Lol! My frail ego? What's your ratio these days? About 2:1 total posts to those that remain in your official count? You never wonder why that might be?

Come on now. Try to support one of those claims with actual evidence rather than personal invective. Let's start with the first one. My claim was that for purposes of comparing the total release of Fukushima to Chernobyl, the then-current release was effectively done. Not that there would be zero additional radiation released, but that it would not be more than 10/20/30% of the then-current release. What percentage of Fukushima's NOW-current release do you believe occured in the period prior to that post?

That, BTW, is what "put up" means. Not that you drag up some old post and claim that it's wrong... but that you can actually demonstrate it.

I assumed that you were mature enough to accomplish this.

I may be forced to admit that I was wrong. :rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Really?

One of four backup generators failed to start?

What the fuck. There's no excuse for that.

[FBaggins]

27. One of five actually.

The plant reportedly needs three for full shutdown operations.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Too thin.

That's not how the generators at my work function, and they aren't life-critical. Yes, these are big-assed generators, custom built to the job, but no fucking way 1 of 5 should fail in time of need. Not a chance in hell.

[FBaggins]

29. I don't think you're thinking that through.

There's no way you build a diesel generator with a 100% reliability.

Moreover... it was taken out of service because of a coolant leak. They knew they had two more than they needed so they used the one that wasn't leaking. There isn't even any indication that the leaking unit couldn't have been pressed into service if a real emergency had occured.

[Fledermaus]

30. How many minutes to meltdown....the cooling quits and nothing works as planned?

[FBaggins]

31. Depends on what else is included in "nothing works"

North Anna has multiple avenues of cooling (including at least two that don't require power).

Of course anyone can play the four-year-old's "and what if that doesn't work... and then what if that doesn't work" game until there is nothing left, but there still isn't an answer to "how many minutes?" without much more information. Do the batteries work but later run dry? Does the terry turbine work but fail when steam pressure falls? Does the tank of boronated water drain into the core and then run dry, or does it just not work at all? etc etc etc.

[Throckmorton]

32. How big are your EDG's?

Yes, one in five failed to meet its mission time (24 hours for 2 of the 4 diesels).
Yes, this is a big deal.
Yes, when you enter PRA space, failure of diesels is second only to failure of the Steam Driven Aux Feedwater Turbine as contributors to core damage frequency.

There is also data that suggests that the local ground acceleration in some areas went beyond the Operating Basis Earthquake level for these plants

[FBaggins]

33. We really can't say it's a "big deal" without more information.

Was the generator unable to supply power or was it selectively taken offline because it was leaking and the standby unit was available?

For all we know, the generator could have run for weeks with just a periodic hose to a radiator. Or a burst/disconnected hose (damaged in the quake?) might have been replaced/repaired quickly if offsite power wasn't restored quickly.

On edit - I see that the same report that said that offsite power had been restored (link below) also said that the generator repairs had been completed.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dominions-north-anna-power-station-restores-offsite-power-128294723.html

[Throckmorton]

34. It did not meet its tech spec for operablity,

nor did it meet it for availablity, which is a looser standard.

[FBaggins]

36. Which doesn't rise to the level of a "big deal"

Though it may get the level of "artificial big deal"... which is a looser standard. :)

But you say below that you have more information. Is there reason to believe that the generator would not be available if two other units somehow failed? Can you be specific about the nature of the leak?

[Throckmorton]

37. If I wanted to lose my job I could

[FBaggins]

38. But you understand what I mean by "artificial" big deal, right?

I mean. If an exit sign here falls to the floor and bursts open, it could release a significant fraction of a TBq worth of tritium. If anyone knows the proper procedure, it's supposed to be called in to the NRC and dealt with carefully, but chances are good that it will end up in a landfill somewhere and there's little chance that anyone will have any negative health effects from the incident.

But if a leak of the same amount of the same element happens at a nuclear power plant, it's treated as a BIG deal (and could be the source of internet ramblings for many months).

IOW, it's a "big deal" because we don't want anyone in the industry to take even the smallest hiccup lightly... but that doesn't change the fact that it's the smallest hiccup.

[Throckmorton]

39. Hypothetically, I would not consider something like a cooling water jacket failure,

possibly seismically induced, on a CAT-1 diesel an Artificial Big Deal.

[FBaggins]

40. Is that something that can be fixed in a couple hours on a unit that large?

It was (reportedly) available again pretty quickly.

"Water jacket failure" really isn't much more telling then "leaking coolant". It could be a significant issue that take a long time to repair, or it could be pretty minor. I understand that you don't want to get too specific, but again... the unit was in service again quite quickly (and without the urgency that I presume other failed units would impart).

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Terminology may be different for a generator of that size

but on smaller internal combustion engines, that usually means the water flow around the cylinder walls, either depositing water into the compression chamber, or out the side of the head/block.

Usually bad times for the engine.

On a generator this large, the term may be inclusive of other, more easily replaceable parts, outside the block/head.

[Throckmorton]

44. If I could send you pictures and diagrams I would,

and some may be in the public domain in a few weeks. It is still indeterminant if the failure was induced by the Seismic event.

Incidentally, it was a non-ASME code case repair, the EDG was available, but did not meet the Tech Spec definition of Operable, after the repair.

Which is:

OPERABLE—OPERABILITY A system, subsystem, train, component, or device shall be OPERABLE or have OPERABILITY when it is capable of performing its specified safety function(s) and when all necessary attendant instrumentation, controls, normal or emergency electrical power, cooling and seal water,
lubrication, and other auxiliary equipment that are required for the system, subsystem, train,component, or device to perform its specified safety function(s) are also capable of performing
their related support function(s).

Available and Unavailable are not defined in Tech Specs
Available refers to a condition where Operability is not met, but the system may still operate when called upon. As opposed to unavailable, which means it will not function when called upon.

It was then removed from service and made unavailable for several days while permanant reapirs were made to a number of seals and gaskets. It is back Operable now.

[FBaggins]

45. So if I read that correctly, ..

if two other generators were vaporized by an alien beam, this one could have been pressed into service. The elected not to use it, it wasn't unavailable.

When they opened it up to replace a part, it was then unavailable... but would not have been a safety constraint if it was needed in order to cool the reactor.

Thus, not a "big deal" (IMO).

It's as if I had a slow leak in my radiator but had five gallons of water in the trunk. I can drive the car for hours until the temperature gauge implies that I'm running low on coolant... so I pull over and refill the expansion tank. If I absolutely must get to the hospital, the car will get me there safely.

[Throckmorton]

46. Well, Aliens are also beyond design basis, but

The Station Blackout (SBO) diesel isn't CAT-1, nor is it as large as the Primary Diesels. It doesn't autoload and requires entry into Emergency Operation Procedure space to use. This is an operator burden, and can distract from other duties.

Beyond design basis events also present the possibility that a single point of vulnerability will compromise multiple systems. The EDG's are redundant, but they are not diverse. A single beyond design basis event has the potential to fail both from a common cause. The SBO diesel, while diverse from the main diesels, is not a 1 for 1 replacement for them, nor has it been analyzed or tested for all design basis events as it is not Cat-1.

The SBO events are not seismically induced, but are postulated to run along the lines of complete loss of offsite, with an attendant loss of all onsite prime mover based AC power due to a maintenance issue or fuel supply failure with both diesels. This is similar to the ATWS rule, in that it does not cover all scenarios, only those demonstrated to be the most likely. In the ATWS Rules case, Reactor Trip Breakers (TCB's)that fail to open on demand due to a common cause issue (At Salem, this was improper maintenance on all TCB's, rendering them unable to respond to a valid trip signal from the reactor protection system).

Those of us that do this kind of thing don't bother looking at what went right, we look at what could have happened and what went wrong. We tend to leave the flowery prose and the feel good press releases to the Liberal Arts Majors.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Try again with a head gasket leak.

Yeah, you can run it for a while, but you are doing significant damage to the engine, and it may fail much faster than it's runtime or MTBF would suggest. And it will likely fail to develop full power while it does last.

[SpoonFed]

48. Watch out...

that imaginary limb you are out on doesn't look like it can support your weight.

[bananas]

49. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=309030&mesg_id=309051

[Throckmorton]

35. and I have a lot more info. N/T