Virginia Quake's jolts were double nuke plant's design!!!

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   





Quake's jolts were double VA nuke plant's design

The magnitude-5.8 earthquake last month in Virginia caused about twice as much ground shaking as a nearby nuclear power plant was designed to withstand, according to a preliminary federal analysis.

Parts of the North Anna Power Station in Mineral, Va., 11 miles from its epicenter, endured jolts equal to 26% of the force of gravity (0.26g) from some of the higher-frequency vibrations unleashed by the quake, said Scott Burnell, spokesman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

An NRC document says the reactors' containment structure was built to withstand 12% of the force of gravity (0.12g.) Dominion, the power company that operates the plant, says parts of the plant can handle up to 0.18g.



See how the information concerning what actually happened at this plant is slowing coming out?



Feel safe?

See also:

Our Own Fukashima Here at Home?! VA Plant may be in trouble!!!

VA Nuclear Plant Loses Power After Quake...NRC WARNED some systems not seismically designed.

Earthquake caused massive nuclear storage casks to move in Virgina
edit on 8-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


that place would go off with a
jolt
you might say
or you may not
it really depends how you say it

well i think this really backs up why we dont need nukes!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   


Originally posted by loam
Feel safe?


Yes, thank you.
edit on 8-9-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
All these recent nuclear incidents makes me wonder whether the builders of these plants knew of the potential dangers. It seems logical to check the earthquake record for the area before you build there, and to design the plant to withstand a step above the worst that area has felt. Big fail for big business married to corrupt government. Thanks for the information.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I used to go wake boarding on Lake Anna...
the lake was always nice and warm

its a shame beautiful bit of country down there


I can only hope in 1 hand that its not gonna turn out
like all Nippon



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 



Originally posted by SirMike
Yes, thank you.


Is that the same logic applied to surviving one motorcycle accident without a helmet so all the rest are survivable too?


There is a reason natural selection is a force of nature.


edit on 8-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
All these recent nuclear incidents makes me wonder whether the builders of these plants knew of the potential dangers. It seems logical to check the earthquake record for the area before you build there, and to design the plant to withstand a step above the worst that area has felt. Big fail for big business married to corrupt government. Thanks for the information.


Yeah... That's why California built the San Onofre plant between San Diego and "Shaky Town (LA)."

And several plants are right on the spine of the New Madrid fault.

In fact... It looks as if They were looking for faults to build these on! Either that or They didn't take earth movement as a serious threat...



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Well, according to this article nukes were set off in VA and CO in an effort to stop the NWO (or whomever you call them) from moving forward on their world plans:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Makes for an interesting read. And would make an awesome movie if someone wanted to make up a good script with this stuff!!!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
All these recent nuclear incidents makes me wonder whether the builders of these plants knew of the potential dangers. It seems logical to check the earthquake record for the area before you build there, and to design the plant to withstand a step above the worst that area has felt. Big fail for big business married to corrupt government. Thanks for the information.


Yeah... That's why California built the San Onofre plant between San Diego and "Shaky Town (LA)."

And several plants are right on the spine of the New Madrid fault.

In fact... It looks as if They were looking for faults to build these on! Either that or They didn't take earth movement as a serious threat...


I dont think that is the case.



It would appear that the location of the New Madrid fault was taken into consideration when siting these plant.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   





After Quake, Virginia Nuclear Plant Takes Stock

After weathering the East Coast’s recent quake, the North Anna nuclear plant finds itself in a situation that no American reactor has ever faced before.

The shock was bigger than anything its designers thought it would ever experience —big enough to make 117-ton canisters of spent fuel skitter a few inches on their storage pad.

The situation is so unusual that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, already facing questions about American earthquake safety after a meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant, has no protocol in place for determining whether North Annas 1970s design still holds up, post-earthquake.



Lovely.
edit on 8-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 



Originally posted by SirMike
I dont think that is the case.


Let's try a different map and source.






Little-known U.S. Fault Lines Cause For Seismic Concern About Potential Earthquakes

The New Madrid fault line is centered in the central part of the country and could affect more than 15 million people in eight states. (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.) But the roughly 1 million people in the metro Memphis, Tenn., region are considered by the U.S. Geological Survey to be at greatest risk from a quake of 7.0 or 8.0. According to an August 2009 report by the U.S. Geological Survey the potential impact could be devastating.

...

There are 15 nuclear power plants in the New Madrid fault zone -- three reactors in Alabama -- that are of the same or similar design as the site in Japan experiencing problems.




Interactive Map.

Are you intentionally or unintentionally misinformed?

edit on 8-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


You do know how to read a contour map, don’t you? When you say that many US nuclear plants are on the New Madrid Fault line, what you really mean is that many US nuclear plants are within several hundred miles of the New Madrid Fault line.

Not quite the same thing.

Dont confuse what a structure is designed for and what its built for as the actual construction contains a margin well in excess of its design basis.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


I took Your image and overlayed it with a more contrasty image, and drew where I believe the fault line goes...



I may be off, but it is clear that much of the higher activity is near the power plants We have built.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 




What are you rambling about?




There are 15 nuclear power plants in the New Madrid fault zone -- three reactors in Alabama -- that are of the same or similar design as the site in Japan experiencing problems.


Makes whatever point you seem to be making rather silly doesn't it?

But then again, you see what happened in Virgina as a good thing.
edit on 9-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by SirMike
 



There are 15 nuclear power plants in the New Madrid fault zone -- three reactors in Alabama -- that are of the same or similar design as the site in Japan experiencing problems.


Makes whatever point you seem to be making rather silly doesn't it?


Not at all. My point is that based on the seismic hazard map posted above, seismic issues stemming from the New Madrid fault were obviously taken into consideration as there isn’t a unit within 250 miles of the most active areas. While Browns Ferry is of a similar design to Fukushima, it sits about 300 miles away from the coast, not exactly at risk from a Tsunami.


Originally posted by loam
reply to post by SirMikeBut then again, you see what happened in Virginia as a good thing.


I certainly do see it as a good thing: a nuclear unit receiving only superficial damage during an event which exceeded certain portions of its deign basis. Do you see this as a bad thing? Would you consider it a “good thing” if the plant suffered some catastrophic failure in a safety related system?


North Anna's licensing design basis is 0.12g (peak ground force acceleration) at 100 Hertz (Hz). However, Dominion notes that the plant's design accelerations are significantly higher than 0.12g in the critical range of 2 Hz to 10 Hz, where most earthquake damage is likely to occur. Instruments at the plant indicated that vertical and horizontal motion "very briefly" exceeded 0.12g in the 2Hz to 10 Hz range - by some 12% on average in horizontal direction and by about 21% on average in the vertical direction. The entire earthquake lasted for some 25 seconds, but the peak motion lasted only 3.1 seconds, Dominion said.

Eugene Grecheck, vice president of nuclear development at Dominion, said: "We are seeing exactly what independent seismic experts have told us to expect - minor damage such as insulation that was shaken off some pipes, electrical bushings that will be replaced and some surface cracking on non-seismic qualified walls."



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 



Originally posted by SirMike
Not at all. My point is that based on the seismic hazard map posted above,


What was the source for that again?



Originally posted by SirMike
seismic issues stemming from the New Madrid fault were obviously taken into consideration as there isn’t a unit within 250 miles of the most active areas.


It is meaningless to cite "most active" when the risk is clearly in association with the potential for an event similar to the one that took place in the early 1800s.


But not that any of this will persuade you. After all, you really only seem concerned with a trivial argument about whether a plant is actually ON TOP OF a known fault within the zone, ignoring the fact that the risk nonetheless remains for catastrophic damage to occur for some if not all of the 15 plants positioned within seismically relevant locations within the zone.


Originally posted by SirMike
While Browns Ferry is of a similar design to Fukushima, it sits about 300 miles away from the coast, not exactly at risk from a Tsunami.


I missed it. Who said those plants were at risk for tsunami?



Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by SirMikeBut then again, you see what happened in Virginia as a good thing.


I certainly do see it as a good thing: a nuclear unit receiving only superficial damage during an event which exceeded certain portions of its deign basis. Do you see this as a bad thing? Would you consider it a “good thing” if the plant suffered some catastrophic failure in a safety related system?



I see luck as a good thing.

I do not see luck as a sound nuclear regulatory plan.



Originally posted by SirMike

North Anna's licensing design basis is 0.12g (peak ground force acceleration) at 100 Hertz (Hz). However, Dominion notes that the plant's design accelerations are significantly higher than 0.12g in the critical range of 2 Hz to 10 Hz, where most earthquake damage is likely to occur. Instruments at the plant indicated that vertical and horizontal motion "very briefly" exceeded 0.12g in the 2Hz to 10 Hz range - by some 12% on average in horizontal direction and by about 21% on average in the vertical direction. The entire earthquake lasted for some 25 seconds, but the peak motion lasted only 3.1 seconds, Dominion said.

Eugene Grecheck, vice president of nuclear development at Dominion, said: "We are seeing exactly what independent seismic experts have told us to expect - minor damage such as insulation that was shaken off some pipes, electrical bushings that will be replaced and some surface cracking on non-seismic qualified walls."



You seem to do a very poor job of providing links to your sources.

Notwithstanding what Dominion said about itself, this is what the NRC had to say:

1) 25 spent-fuel storage casks — each weighing 115 tons — moved on their concrete pads;

2) the plant was designed to withstand 12% of the force of gravity (0.12g.), the plant experienced twice that number;

3) by the NRCs own admission, it has no protocol in place for determining whether North Anna's 1970s design still holds up; and

4) they are still assessing the situation and have made no final safety or damage conclusions.

edit on 9-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 



But not that any of this will persuade you. After all, you really only seem concerned with a trivial argument about whether a plant is actually ON TOP OF a known fault within the zone, ignoring the fact that the risk nonetheless remains for catastrophic damage to occur for some if not all of the 15 plants positioned within seismically relevant locations within the zone.


Its not a trivial argument, and its one another poster, Amaterasu, above made when he stated that the plants were built ”right on the spine of the New Madrid fault”.

There is only a risk for catastrophic damage if the plants were not designed to withstand an earthquake. So far, all you have done is made meaningless conjecture on the subject and not presented so much as one scrap of evidence to make your case that the plants seismic designs are insufficient for the area’s they are located in.

And to say that plants cant be designed to withstand a strong earthquake and built to survive one stronger than its design basis is ludicrous. Fukushima Daini, for example, survived both the Tōhoku earthquake and accompanying tsunami relatively unscathed.


I see luck as a good thing.


Luck had nothing to do with it, North Anna was both well built and well designed, allowing it to survive this earthquake with only the most superficial damage.


I I do not see luck as a sound nuclear regulatory plan.


So fill me in, what is “sound nuclear regulatory planning” and how was it contravened in this instance?



1)25 spent-fuel storage casks — each weighing 115 tons — moved on their concrete pads;
.

To what effect? Oh, that’s right, nothing happened.


2) the plant was designed to withstand 12% of the force of gravity (0.12g.), the plant experienced twice that number;
.

It experienced twice that number in a lower frequency not as potentially harmful to structures. Remember that the design basis is .12g at 100hz.


3)by the NRCs own admission, it has no protocol in place for determining whether North Anna's 1970s design still holds up; and
.

Huh? What butt did you pull that out of?


4) They are still assessing the situation and have made no final safety or damage conclusions
.

I am sure that after the additional inspections are complete, they will come to the same conclusions that Dominion has.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


How do you arrive so comfortably at your conclusions, when the NRC can't seem to confidently do the same?





“Real-world experience trumps all calculations,” said Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the [NRC]. “It provides an opportunity to have real empirical data you can put into the equation, rather than something that’s a computer model.”

The [NRC] has assigned a special team to study the quake’s effects on North Anna, and in the next two years it must determine whether a score of nuclear plants in the eastern United States are earthquake-safe.



Perhaps you should give them a call!




edit on 9-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8

log in

join