NRC Discusses Preliminary Results from North Anna Inspections

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a public meeting yesterday to discuss its team’s preliminary inspection results on how the North Anna nuclear plant withstood the August 23 earthquake that rippled throughout the East Coast and the adequacy of the plant’s response.

What did they find?

David Heacock, Dominion’s president and chief nuclear officer, explains in a short video clip at the meeting:

The plant operated as designed with a few minor equipment problems and the people did a fantastic job operating the plant and safely shutting it down.

Each nuclear plant in the United States is built to safely withstand an earthquake—North Anna is no exception. But Heacock explains how having an additional safety margin helped the plant when the unexpected quake struck.

These plants were designed for a seismic event about the size of this seismic event, but for a much longer duration. Duration is very important. As duration gets longer, more and more energy gets imparted upon the plant. This event lasted about three seconds for the strong shaking, but we’re designed for a minimum of 15 seconds of strong shaking. So this is really about 20 percent of the energy the plant is designed to take.

Next steps: Starting tomorrow for about a 10-day period, the NRC will have a five-member crew conducting a thorough inspection at the site to ensure that all equipment is available and that there isn’t damage to safety equipment before the plant restarts. Last Friday the NRC outlined its post-earthquake requirements, which Dominion must meet before the plant is allowed to restart.

For more information, check out the NRC’s website where you can find current actions at the plant, a chronology of events, and frequently asked questions.

Savings in Georgia; AP Investigates, Finds Nothing

Georgia Power is applying some price pressure on its Plant Vogtle project (where Peter Pepper picked a peck of peppers, apparently), as its ability to charge ratepayers a little bit more now saves a lot later.

Georgia Power has cut $18 million from its planned nuclear expansion project at Plant Vogtle, informing state utility regulators Wednesday that their cost for the project is now $6.09 billion.

Now, you may say that now or later, it’s the same amount, but not so.

The cost of Georgia Power’s portion of the project originally was approved for $6.4 billion but reduced to $6.09 billion after the utility was allowed to collect financing costs from customers. The $18 million in reductions stem from financing costs that were lowered “primarily as a result of changing in the timing of cash expenditures,” the report said.

Which means that the interest costs are declining because Georgia Power can pay as it goes on at least some of the activities associated with the two new reactors. A good deal for the ratepayers overall.

---

I understand that the Associated Press started its series on nuclear facilities with the best of intentions: after all, journalists are watchdogs and if the nuclear industry is to be taken to task, so be it. But the industry just hasn’t played along by dishing up the scandalous behavior such a story needs.

Let’s see what’s what:

The risk that an earthquake would cause a severe accident at a U.S. nuclear plant is greater than previously thought, 24 times as high in one case, according to an analysis of preliminary government data by The Associated Press.

That sounds bad, but consider that a number of plants just got shook around last week (and San Onofre in a recent California trembler) none the worse for wear. What the AP means here is a much bigger earthquake than what has occurred lately. But here’s the conclusion:

The average risk to U.S. reactors of core damage from a quake remains low, at one accident every 500 years, according to the AP analysis of NRC data.

Well, that’s taking the long way around. But maybe the NRC and industry aren’t doing anything to enhance earthquake safety.

Just how many nuclear power plants are more vulnerable won't be determined until all operators recalculate their seismic risk, based on geologists' new assessments -- which the agency plans to request later this year. The NRC on Thursday issued a draft of that request for public comment.

The review, launched well before the East Coast quake and the Japan nuclear disaster in March, marks the first complete update to seismic risk in years for the nation's 104 existing reactors, despite research showing greater hazards.

Well, that sounds responsible. Reports have emerged suggesting larger risks, so the NRC is reviewing what this might mean for the nuclear facilities.

Richard Zuercher, spokesman for Dominion, the plant operator [meaning North Anna, which was near the epicenter of the Virginia earthquake], says the earlier estimate "remains sound because additional safety margin was built into the design when the station was built." The safety cushion would shrink, though, if the plant's risk is found to be greater.

Yes, and the safety margin would grow if the plant’s risk is found to be lesser.

This isn’t a case of the AP not providing information that is exculpatory. It’s that the industry and NRC are transparent enough that AP can’t make a viably shocking expose. As shown in the AP’s own story, the industry and NRC are responsive and clearly working with the seismic data – maybe not on the same timetable as the US Geologic Survey (one of AP’s “bombshells”) but none-the-less.

Sometimes less is more, but sometimes it really is just less. I was keenly interested in these AP articles – not that I expected to be shaken up but because I thought I ‘d spend more time disputing them - but they’ve turned out to be kind of a bust. No hanky-panky between regulators and regulated, no fuel rods found piled in a closet, no one sneaking uranium around in a suitcase – just companies and a regulator working through issues. But read it and judge for yourself. Don’t expect to gasp much, though.

NEI has an interesting face sheet on seismic safety issues here.

“I survived the Virginia earthquake,” it says. As did everyone else.

The East Coast Earthquake of 2011

Those of us on the east coast have yet another major event to remember – a 5.8 earthquake that shook virtually the entire east coast. No one who doesn’t come from the west is used to such an event, so the level of surprise and mystified reaction was considerable. We won’t know for awhile if there was substantial damage or casualties. Let’s hope for little of the former and none of the latter. But we do know something about the nuclear facilities.

Dominion Virginia Power shut down its two North Anna reactors  as a result of the earthquake, according to the  the company.

The earthquake was felt at the North Anna Power Station and the reactor operators, following procedures, shut down the reactors," said company spokesman Jim Norvelle. "It was a manual shutdown."

The plant declared an alert, the second lowest level of emergency declaration, a commission spokesman said.

About what you’d expect. Virginia was at the epicenter of the quake.

Dominion Virginia Power's Surry Power Station is operating as normal, he said.

Also about right. Power was knocked out at North Anna – it has diesel generators to keep things running - but retained at Surrey.

How about Limerick in Pennsylvania?

“The earthquake was felt, but it didn’t jeopardize the safe operation of the plant. Both units are 100 percent and are online,” Szafran said in a phone interview just before 3 p.m. Tuesday.

“For this type of event, we have procedures in place, including a walk-down of all structures.” No evacuation was necessary, he said.

Indian Point in New York?

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants have begun “Abnormal Operating Procedures,” according to Entergy Spokesman Jim Steets, after Tuesday afternoon's 5.9 magnitude earthquake. Abnormal Operating Procedures, or AOP, mean that the plant is being inspected for damage, although none has yet been found.

Calvert Cliffs in Maryland?

The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Maryland, the closest nuclear plant to Washington, D.C., remained stable at 100% of capacity, a spokesman for Constellation Energy Nuclear Group LLC said Tuesday.

Constellation declared an "unusual event" at the plant, said Constellation spokesman Mark Sullivan.

This story mentions two more.

Mr. Sullivan said the company's nuclear plants in Scriba, N.Y., and Ontario, N.Y., were performing similar examinations although neither plant registered abnormal seismic activity.

These would be Nine Mile Point and R.E. Ginna.

Now, of course, we understand that Fukushima Daiichi in Japan was hit by an earthquake, though it may turn out that it was the tsunami following the earthquake that was the determinative event. No American plant is vulnerable to tsunami and this wasn’t the kind of earthquake that could generate a tsunami.

Regardless of all this, it makes sense that the very fact of an earthquake set reporters to asking about the local nuclear facilities. By and large, reporters have been responsible, calling over to the plants – when the lines were open – and finding out what’s what.

And what’s what? The plant nearest the epicenter closed down – though mostly due to loss of external power - and most of the others (all of the others I found information about) are puttering right along, checking around the plants for any damage but mostly unaffected.

The earthquake just happened a couple of hours ago. There will be aftershocks, though none so far. Most folks, I reckon, are a little shook up. There’s no reason to believe the nuclear facilities should contribute to that, and they haven’t.

Let’s let Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell have the last word:

"In the wake of the earthquake, I would like to encourage all Virginians to check on neighbors and loved ones to ensure that everyone is safe and to continue cooperating with law enforcement and emergency responders working in your neighborhood,’’said McDonnell, who is holding a news conference later today. 

Let’s do that. Check on loved ones, make sure your neighbors are okay, get home safely, calm any panicky pets and turn on the TV or radio to keep up with events. It’s plenty. It’s enough.

Preliminary Data on the Tohoku Earthquake

Harvard Seismology has put together a fascinating set of maps and preliminary data about the Japan earthquake. All of it is interesting, but two especially struck me in relation to the events at Fukushima Daiichi.

Here’s the explanation of this map:

The figure … shows the relative amount of energy release from various locations that radiated energy during the first 25 minutes (darker orange showing higher energy release). The largest energy release occurs downdip of the epicentre, and the regions south of the epicentre release more energy than segments to the north (partially due to multiple large aftershocks on Mw 9.0 earthquake).

If I read this right, the Onahama and Fukushima plants were struck by the bottom most energy release, but the text indicates Fukushima would also have been affected by the upper energy release. it looks like it was sandwiched between two massive energy releases.

This map shows the current earthquake and historical instances:

Here’s the explanation:

The largest energy release occurred on segments that are known to have generated tsunamis in the past (blue contours). The patch of the Mw 9.0 earthquake close the epicentre overlaps with the source regions of the 1915, 1936, and 1978 tsunamis. [It goes to do more historical comparison]

What struck me about this is that earthquakes that caused tsunamis have historically happened at sea while in this instance, the landmass was directly impacted by both the earthquake and the tsunami resulting from it. That seems a unique situation, though the page doesn’t say it is.

I may be on to – well, nothing here, but it’d be great to hear from other seismologists, who, you know, actually know something, on this.