Alert! Overheated Spent Fuel Rod Storage At Earthquake Damaged North Anna Nuclear

Overheated spent nuclear fuel rod storage at Earthquake damaged North Anna nuclear plant, and Dominion's resultant request for a Federal Exemption seem like a very bad idea to the Potrblog team.

On the other hand, for Dominion and the NRC, an exemption could save a world of money and a massive industry wide nightmare if the dry casket storage is shown to have not measured up.



Click to see the April 4th release in the Federal Register regarding the North Anna overheated spent fuel rod casket exemption.

[ALERT] 3.1 Magnitude Earthquake Near North Anna Nuclear Plant, Mineral Virginia

A shallow 3.1 Earthquake occurred Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 23:21:51 (Local Time) within approximately 15 miles of the North Anna Nuclear Plant.

The situation bears monitoring because of previous earthquake damage at the plant and likely associated reports of degraded station batteries (possibly caused by the previous quake)

[ALERT] NRC Notifies on Radioactive "Kleenex Holders", Yet NOTHING on North Anna Nuclear's "REACTOR LEAK"

There is an NRC event report out today regarding the discovery of a shipment of RADIOACTIVE  "Kleenex box holders" from New Jersey destined for a Bed Bath and Beyond store in California. Yet, the NRC event reports remain completely silent about the; "REACTOR LEAK" which caused a "partial shutdown" of North Anna nuclear plant. While the identification of metal "Kleenex boxes" contaminated with COBALT 60 is important, it pales in comparison the Fukushima like risk coming out of the North Anna nuclear plants.

The question obviously rises: are the problems at North Anna Nuclear Plant being underreported because the NRC approved the restart on earthquake damaged UNIT 1 based on an inspection of UNIT 2 ? Imagine two airplanes involved in the same crash landing, and the FAA certifying both planes as safe to fly after they have only inspect ONE of the aircraft for air worthiness. That is essentially what has happened at North Anna after the August 5.8 earthquake in Virginia shook those nuclear plants at a level greater than for which they were designed.


Obviously it must be very embarrassing for the NRC every time the North Anna plant has to shut down for an issue that correlates with the 5.8 earth quake in Virginia, especially when those issues might have been caught in an in-depth inspection. It is only reasonable to assume that such reporting would be delayed as long as possible.

The take away is that residents of North Anna, and anyone down wind or down stream should not rely on the NRC event pages as early warning systems for North Anna Nuclear. But it is worse than that, every partial shutdown and restart cycle of those nuclear plants is just one step close to a fatigue failure. Moreover, from a probabilistic view point, the most dangerous time period in the nuclear cycle is during a manual shutdown.

It would be wise for anyone in North Anna threat zone to take cost effective risk mitigation measures; the cheapest and simplest of which would be to have a supply of IOSAT on hand.  Given the Russian Nuclear Roulette wheel the NRC and North Anna Nuclear are spinning right now in Virginia, we believe even greater risk mitigation measures are warranted for the wise.

see the video update here
http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2012/01/bed-bath-and-beyond-radioactive-kleenex.html

North Anna Nuclear: When Is a NUCLEAR EMERGENCY Not Reported As An EMERGENCY? And How To Protect Yourself.

Earthquake shaken North Anna Nuclear Plant Unit 1 had an emergency yesterday 12/5/11 related to its ability to cool the nuclear core. However, the NRC event report on the situation is NOT classified as an emergency because "DISCOVERY OF AFTER-THE-FACT EMERGENCY CONDITION - UNUSUAL EVENT". In other words, they did not realize they had an emergency until after the fact so they don't have to report it as an emergency.

If there were one nuclear plant in the country one would predict would be at greatest risk of disaster it would be UNIT 1 at North Anna nuclear. North Anna recently experienced an earthquake beyond what the plant was designed to withstand. Unit 1 was deemed to be okay to operate based on an inspection of Unit 2. Unit 2 had its fuel replaced, Unit 1 did not. Its the functional equivalent of the Government requiring only 1 of your cars to get a safety sticker, because your other car checked out okay after the accident both of your cars were involved in. Imagine if they let commercial aircraft operate that way.

The current emergency at North Anna Unit 1 is difficult to assess because the event reports never resolve all the ambiguity; but it appears that the reactor cooling system became erratic, resulting in an in ability to dynamically control the reactor's coolant pressure. As a result, a pressure safety valve blew open in an attempt to prevent further damage and 42 gallons of radioactive coolant spewed out into a Pressurizer Relief Tank.

The real question is: was the source of the pressure change an earthquake related issue with the fuel rods; or was the issue earthquake related with pressure control valve? Neither is good, and either can lead to a meltdown, but the latter is more recoverable.

But no matter what the case, North Anna is definitely the one place in the country where being prepared for a nuclear accident by spending FIVE DOLLARS on a pack of IOSAT for each member of the family would make for a very effective cost effective risk mitigation strategy.



Five dollars on IOSAT

North Anna Analysis: Seismic Activity Under Reported; Insufficient Cooling Was Available; Public Was Placed At Risk; Radiation Leaks Not Important To Restart

The POTRBLOG team has completed an analysis of the information presented at the September 8th Dominion North Anna / Nuclear Regulatory commission meeting; we present our findings here for your review and input. In this analysis we will present several key conclusions from our analysis; these are issues  which the NRC team seemingly missed during the meeting. Moreover, we will also point out several significant issues of public concern which the media should have reported.

Overall, the lower level NRC staff engineers & scientists did a good job questioning the significant weaknesses in Dominion’s thrust to underperform in restarting the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant. However,   the  issues listed below remain. Hopefully the NRC will discover and address these issues in their upcoming North Anna meeting on October 3rd, and we look forward to being proved wrong on these points of significant concern.

First, issues either undiscovered or unmentioned by the NRC concerning North Anna.

1. North Anna Unit 2 underwent significantly more ground motion than Unit 1; as evidenced by failure of all three of Unit 2’s generator step up transformers and half of Unit 2’s back up generators, versus the failure of one Unit 1 generator step up transformer and zero of Unit 1’s back up generators. [Unit 1 has limited seismic recording, Unit 2 has no seismic recording]
2. North Anna Unit 2 had its cool down stopped and was left in hot standby because Dominion was concerned about their capability to further cool down the reactor –“Defense in depth”. Indicators are that the lake levels were significantly dropped by the cool down of Unit 1
3. Had North Anna’s seismic alarms functioned properly both reactors Units 1 and 2 would have been required to go into cold shutdown, which lake levels and cooling capacity may have not supported.
4. The failure of North Anna to react properly as a result of the failure of seismic indicators to alert the operators of earthquake design exceedance combined with an approaching hurricane and limited reactor cooling capability placed the public at risk.

Second, issues mentioned by the NRC but not covered by the media.

1. The NRC does not consider radioactive leakage from the plant to be a hindrance to restarting North Anna unless it is “REALLY LEAKING” to the point of affecting functionality of the restart.
2. North Anna’s limited dimensional seismic recording capability UNDERREPORTED the strength of the quake.
3. The seismic recordings which were available were missing several frequency bands.
4. Dominion’s inspection theory has been based on “if it looks good, it must be good”
5. North Anna should have been able to interpret seismic results on site.

Finally, there is at least one person at North Anna who deserves a pay raise. But, that raise is deserved based on his ability to skillfully “handle” regulatory engineers and scientists.

North Anna Nuclear Unit2 Had Greater Ground Motion Than Unit 1, but all Earthquake Design Basis Calculations Were Measured from Unit 1 Data

North Anna Nuclear Unit 2 Had Greater Ground Motion Than Unit 1, but all Earthquake Design Basis calculations were measured from Unit 1 data.

Updates will follow

North Anna NRC Meeting Summary: I Would NOT Want to Live Near North Anna

This is our quick plain language summary of the NRC meeting with the Dominion North Anna Nuclear; a follow-up is planned.

Based on limited, incomplete, and sometimes contradictory earthquake data, combined with visual "if it looks good, it IS good" inspections; North Anna nuclear believes they have no real damage and that they only need to follow minimal procedures to restart the facility.

Several of the lower level NRC engineers and geologists saw the obvious issues with Dominion's position and asked questions which highlighted the 'iffy' nature of their calculations and overall thrust.

I project that the lower level NRC engineering concerns will not translate up to NRC management because the cost of performing true diligence will be too great for Dominion to restart that plant.

The NRC also seemed to indicate they have no concerns with radioactive ground water contamination occurring at levels other nuclear plants have experienced.

Its clear to me that it will be quantitatively impossible for North Anna Nuclear to establish what level of earthquake the nuclear plant will be able to survive in the future. I wager that the primary hope is that there will be no new such earthquake for at least 100 years, and that a New Madrid quake would have only minimal effect in the current period.

Its also clear to me that North Anna gambled that the Nuclear Plant would survive Hurricane Irene despite raw data that would indicate it was a risky gamble. I also question if North Anna did not do their own immediate analysis of the earthquake monitoring equipment because the results would have put onus on them to evacuate the area in response to the incoming hurricane projections.

Based on these opinions, I WOULD NOT WANT TO LIVE NEAR NORTH ANNA. I would not want to be the guinea pig proving that 'low level radioactive leakage" and some subtle current damage would not lead to catastrophic failure in the near to medium term future. It is a gamble which North Anna can afford because they are protected by governmental regulations from the market forces that would require large insurance premiums for that plant to restart. If North Anna screws up, its the Public that is hurt and it is the Public which will cover the governmental insurance bailout.

If we want North Anna to be safe the NRC is NOT the answer. The answer is removing Dominion North Anna Nuclear from the public corporate welfare Nuclear insurance teat and having them seek and pay for their own operating insurance. No insurance company in its right mind would insure North Anna and its current plans/approach; only the government is that careless.

The DATA LEAK that sparked tomorrow's unscheduled NORTH ANNA Nuclear plant NRC meeting- THE QUAKE EXCEEDED THE DESIGN BY 2X

The DATA LEAK that sparked tomorrow's unscheduled NORTH ANNA Nuclear plant NRC meeting- THE QUAKE EXCEEDED THE DESIGN BY 2X.

The data leak that the POTRBLOG team Tweeted about earlier this morning has come to fruition.

[ALERT] NRC To Hold September 8 Public Meeting On NORTH ANNA NUCLEAR

Update: The DATA LEAK that sparked tomorrow's unscheduled NORTH ANNA Nuclear plant NRC meeting- THE QUAKE EXCEEDED THE DESIGN BY 2X

Anyone down wind, down stream, or living any where near the North Anna Nuclear Plant should do their utmost to physically attend TOMMORROW's (Sept 8th) PUBLIC MEETING that the Nuclear Regulator Commission will hold with Dominion North Anna management.


The extremely short meeting notice and the 2 1/2 hour drive required for North Anna residents to attend the meeting will make it difficult for local North Anna residents to attend and ask difficult questions (which likely won't be allowed anyways). IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT NORTH ANNA RESIDENTS ATTEND; a lack of in-person public attendance equates to a lack of public accountability.


The meeting will be held 1 – 5 p.m "Thursday, Sept. 8, in the Commissioners’ Conference Room on the first floor of the NRC’s One White Flint North building, at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville, Md".




The short of the meeting will be that North Anna plant is currently safe and that the plant will not be restarted until safety is assured.


What will NOT be discussed is:

1. The detail criteria which would cause the NRC to decommission the North Anna Plant.
2. The detail definition of "Normal Radioactive Releases".
3. The detail definition of abnormal radioactive releases.
4. The current effective earthquake design limit of the Nuclear Plant at this instant in time.
5. The current effective earthquake design limit of the entire site as a composite, Nuclear Plant and Lake Anna Dam (+ dikes) at this instant in time.
6. How much lower Lake Anna levels could have dropped before impacting the safety of the plant.
7. A detail definition (with criteria) of what "safety assured" means.
8. Any explanation of how and why the public's safety was put at risk by withholding information from the public until AFTER THE HURRICANE HAD PASSED that the plant's earthquake design limits where exceeded.

[ URGENT ] North Anna Nuclear, Hurricane Irene, Personal Evacuation Decision

A detail analysis of the Lake Anna nuclear plant's dropping lake levels; decay heat steam discharges; earthquake design limits; and the key indicators that one should evacuate the immediate crisis zone before Hurricane Irene arrives.

[ALERT] For families Downwind and Downstream of the NORTH ANNA Nuclear Plant; It would be wise to INCREASE Preparations for a Radiological Release.

New information, most of which is foggy, indicates a new vector for cooling loss at the North Anna Nuclear plant. Working on the presumption that positive information does not remain foggy,  wise risk mitigation would indicate that further vigilance and preparation is required by those that might be affected by a radiological release.

Delving through the fog of officially UN-clarified data, the risks are as follows.

Risk 1:

The decay heat steam venting is dropping lake levels at potentially ONE  MILLION GALLONS PER MINUTE. Lake levels are already dropping and obviously this cooling mechanism cannot continue indefinitely. Note the freshly dropped lake levels in this photo.

To resolve this issue the plant must restart electrical generation post haste. Apparently North Anna Nuclear is aware the need for speed in restarting generation, BUT they claim they are hurrying because they want to lower their customers electrical bills.

"Because the nuclear plants are the lowest-cost source of generation for our customers, we're making all efforts to return the units to service as soon as possible," 




RISK 2:

Despite claims to the contrary, it is exceedingly plausible that the earthquake design limits were exceeded. This probability decreases the likelihood that the plant will restart safely and quickly. It also increases the likelihood of a single point failure in the decay heat steam cooling leading to a radiological escape. All of which increase the magnitude of RISK1 above.


A North Anna spokesman has stated on television that the plant was designed for a 6.2 earthquake and that they were "ready for this". To the contrary, because of the shallow nature of the quake, the probability is that ground motion and acceleration exceeded the design limit of the plant (but remained within the ultimate limit).

It is disturbing that a North Anna representative would declare the plant safe based on a general Qualitative measure such as a 5.8 earthquake being less than a 6.2 earthquake, as opposed to a specific Quantitative measures such as ground motion and acceleration of this quake versus the specific engineering limits for those values. Had the seismographs not been removed from the plant because of budget cuts, some of the fog regarding this issue would be clear-able.



RISK 3:

 Another Emergency has been declared at North Anna as a result of the 8/25/11 after shock; Event Number: 47196. The report states that "There was no radiological release". However, that statement is contradicted by reports that "No release of radioactive material occurred beyond the minor releases associated with normal station operations" One has to ask what exactly are normal releases when the plant is operating in an emergency mode, do they mean no more than expected under this type of emergency?

The fog of Risk3 aside, given that the probability the plant exceeded its design limit from the initial quake, further aftershocks increase the potential of surpassing the ultimate limit of the plant.


Mitigating factor:

A mitigating factor for all of these risks is that the quake did not cause massive infrastructure disruption, hence the logistic response capability appears not to be affected.

Note: Hat tip to ENENEWS for several links

[ALERT] North Anna: Be Prepared for Radioactive Leakage Into The Atmosphere

Based on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operations Center Event Reports For 08/23/2011 - 08/24/2011, fifteen nuclear plants made emergency notifications related to the 8/23/2011 Virginia earthquake. Out of the 15 different Nuclear plants which made emergency event reports, only the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant nuclear operating plant reported that they DID NOT have any radiological releases [Event Number: 47184].

The most serious of the 15 emergency reports is from the North Anna Power Station in Virginia [Event Number: 47181]. The North Anna station went into complete shutdown as a result the earthquake; it lost all offsite power; it went on emergency backup generators (1 of which failed). The event report states "Decay heat is being removed via the steam dumps to atmosphere".

Based on a quick check of the design of the North Anna unit ( a 3 loop Westinghouse), Radioactive core coolant is being pumped to a heat exchanger were it is cooled by feed water. That non-radioactive feed water is turned to steam and released directly into the environment. Under normal conditions the steam is used to power the generator turbine and is NOT exposed to the environment but is returned in a closed loop system.

In the current situation of direct venting of steam into the atmosphere, the North ANNA plant appears to be operating in a single point of failure mode. Namely, a simple leakage in the heat exchanger (or any seals in the steam generation unit) could result in the escape of radioactive materials directly into the atmosphere via the ongoing decay heat steam venting.

Given that the nuclear reactor has just experienced an earthquake that appears to be at its design limit, it would be wise to be prepared for direct leakage of radioactive material into the atmosphere via the ongoing decay heat steam venting.