«  
  »

Time.com: “Augmented Inspection Team” is only used when risk of reactor core damage rises by 100 — AIT already at quake-hit North Anna nuke plant

Published: September 1st, 2011 at 4:10 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
44 comments


Inspectors check Virginia nuclear plant for earthquake damage, Washington Post by Brian Vastag, August 31, 2011:

Inspectors dispatched by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission arrived at Virginia’s North Anna nuclear power plant Tuesday on a three-week mission to assess any damage caused by last week’s earthquake [...]

The inspection is unusual, said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for NRC. Such “augmented inspection teams” are dispatched to nuclear plants “infrequently. If I had to put a number on it I’d say once every couple of years.” [...]

[Richard Zuercher, a Dominion spokesman] would not provide the amount of shaking revealed by the preliminary analysis. “We want to know for sure what we have,” he said, adding that Dominion would make available a fuller analysis of the shaking by the end of the week. [...]

Nuclear Safety: U.S. ‘Near-Misses’ in 2010, Time.com by Eben Harrell, March 17, 2011:

[...] First, a note on how the reactor oversight process works in the U.S.: When an event occurs at a reactor, or when NRC inspectors discover damage or degraded equipment, the NRC undertakes a  review of the risk to the reactor. The NRC undertook 200 such reviews in 2010, the UCS report states. When an event or condition increases the chance of reactor core damage by a factor of 10, then the NRC sends out a “Special Inspection Team” (SIT). When the risk rises by 100, the agency dispatches an “Augmented Inspection Team“. And when the risk increases by 1000 or more, the NRC sends out an “Incident Inspection Team.” [...]

Footage of the quake from inside a Virginia school:

 

Published: September 1st, 2011 at 4:10 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
44 comments

Related Posts

  1. NRC now sending ‘Augmented Inspection Team’ to quake-hit Virginia nuke plant — Does not ‘necessarily’ mean reactors are any less safe, stresses NRC August 30, 2011
  2. Feds question whether there was damage to fuel in reactors at quake-hit North Anna nuke plant — The answer may surprise you September 29, 2011
  3. WaPo: NRC directs quake-hit North Anna nuke plant to inspect supports for Reactor Pressure Vessel — No “significant” problems? November 6, 2011
  4. Local paper asks “Is North Anna safe?” Did quake damage nuclear reactors or underground piping? August 31, 2011
  5. Nuclear Expert: Quake-hit Virginia nuke plant should be distributing bottled water to nearby residents — Pipes under North Anna are potentially a grave public danger August 30, 2011
September 1st, 2011 | Tags: , | Category: Audio/Video Clips, North Anna (VA), US
«  
  »

44 comments to Time.com: “Augmented Inspection Team” is only used when risk of reactor core damage rises by 100 — AIT already at quake-hit North Anna nuke plant

  • anne anne
    September 1, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2010
    Union of Concerned Scientists
    Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions
    “The chances of a disaster at a nuclear plant are low. When the NRC finds
    safety problems and ensures that owners address them—as happened last
    year at Oconee, Browns Ferry, and Kewaunee—it keeps the risk posed by
    nuclear power to workers and the public as low as practical. But when the
    NRC tolerates unresolved safety problems—as it did last year at Peach
    Bottom, Indian Point, and Vermont Yankee—this lax oversight allows that
    risk to rise. The more owners sweep safety problems under the rug and the
    longer safety problems remain uncorrected, the higher the risk climbs.
    While none of the safety problems in 2010 caused harm to plant
    employees or the public, their frequency—more than one per month—is high
    for a mature industry. The severe accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and
    Chernobyl in 1986 occurred when a handful of known problems—aggravated
    by a few worker miscues—transformed fairly routine events into
    catastrophes. That plant owners could have avoided nearly all 14 near-misses
    in 2010 had they corrected known deficiencies in a timely manner suggests
    that our luck at nuclear roulette may someday run out….
    “Most safety-related incidents and discoveries at nuclear power plants are
    low risk. However, when an event or condition increases the chance of reactor
    core damage by a factor of 10, the NRC is likely to send out a special inspection
    team (SIT). When the risk rises by a factor of 100, the agency may
    dispatch an augmented inspection team (AIT). And when the risk increases
    by a factor of 1,000 or more, the NRC may send an incident inspection team
    (IIT). The teams go to the sites to investigate what happened, why it happened,
    and any safety implications for other nuclear plants. These teams take
    many weeks to conduct an investigation, evaluate the information they gather,
    and document their findings in a report, which they usually make public.
    Both routine inspections and those of the special teams identify violations
    of NRC regulations. The NRC classifies these violations into five categories,
    with Red denoting the most serious, followed by Yellow, White,
    Green, and Non-Cited Violations (NCVs).”
    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nrc-2010-full-report.pdf


    Report Comment

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue
      September 1, 2011 at 5:00 pm

      Anne,Thanks for the info. So when things are really bad they send out the IIT patrol. I hope AIT is not too bias. When are they expected to inspect North Anna? I’m sure it’s in the report, I’ll look again. Thanks again.


      Report Comment

  • anne anne
    September 1, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Magnitude 3.4
    Date-Time

    Thursday, September 01, 2011 at 09:09:38 UTC
    Thursday, September 01, 2011 at 05:09:38 AM at epicenter
    Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

    Location 37.951°N, 77.927°W
    Depth 3.5 km (2.2 miles)
    Region VIRGINIA
    Distances 50 km (31 miles) SW of Fredericksburg, Virginia
    52 km (32 miles) E of Charlottesville, Virginia
    58 km (36 miles) NW of RICHMOND, Virginia
    85 km (52 miles) NNE of Farmville, Virginia
    Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.4 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 0.3 km (0.2 miles)

    Someone, Chas Aha, I think, posted the EVENT notification at N. Anna NPP


    Report Comment

  • bmurr bmurr
    September 1, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    and at 10000 times, the send the public relations team to cover up the danger, or where they there already?


    Report Comment

  • jec
    September 1, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    So ATI was sent to review damage. And any damage from nuclear–not to worry. Each Nuclear Plant has 330 Million in coverage, if larger than that, the government covers the damage. Just like for the BP Oil Spill. Wish that would give a warm and fuzzy feeling, but it doesnot. Damage coverage by a private company should be higher than the 330M listed. Times have changed in 40 yrs. Hope someone else can prove the amounts are incorrect, and they have been raised. And also, would be good to know what documentation is needed to file a complaint–since we personally live within 9 miles of one of these plants.


    Report Comment

    • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno
      September 1, 2011 at 5:44 pm

      Dear jec: Agreed. No warm fuzzy feeling here either. The only ones that seem to have the good kind of warm fuzzies are the billionaires laughing that we aren’t cutting their throats with the requisite guillotines that such events demand as a rational, reasonable response.


      Report Comment

    • mikey
      September 2, 2011 at 4:34 am

      Missed the point maybe- Nuke power is so dangerous that TAXPAYERS (GOV) are on the hook after a few million! Nuke power is on the hook for the DEDUCTIBLE ONLY how sweet for them–IF u want to no how truly Fd up this is ask them why they dont get full coverage themselves? Bucuz no Insurance Company in the WORLD will insure them! What should that be telling U??


      Report Comment

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue
    September 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    [See Link Below]


    Report Comment

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue
    September 1, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Sorry, didn’t mean to post the whole thing.


    Report Comment

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue
    September 1, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    This was forwarded to me by a trusted friend from another trusted friend who spoke with someone whose neighbor’s daughter works at North Anna, the nuclear plant in Virginia, not far from last week’s earthquake.

    No, that’s not three confirmed sources, but I am writing a book, working jobs, and organizing a conference. Take the following for what it’s worth, and please do the reporting.

    “During the quake the administration building buckled. White steam began pouring our of the stacks. There is chaos at the power station. __________ said that two NY Times reporters are investigating – ________ and ____________. He wants to get a Geiger counter and take readings near the plant. He also said that when they were first building the plant some W & M professors told them it was not safe to build it on the fault. I will let you know what else I hear.”


    Report Comment

  • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno
    September 1, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Was that school in Virginia made out of tissue paper?


    Report Comment

    • alasanon
      September 1, 2011 at 6:33 pm

      They will shut down the schools for a month in Virginia over just a few inches of snow… My friend who taught school in both IL and VA can’t believe how easily they close schools here.


      Report Comment

  • Sickputer
    September 1, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Getting a little too close to D.C. I think makes for a different response… What is the mileage? Not the same as 8,000 miles from Fukuville.

    On iPhone and I’m at hospital again with wife… Bad and “unexplained” by tests chest pains. Been this way for several months and the haze to the west in the sky has been bad for three days, big dust storm yesterday and another today.

    I see you guys have been busy… Here’s a classic Cary Grant joke: “Insanity runs in my family… it practically gallops.”

    Keep the faith.


    Report Comment

    • Whoopie Whoopie
      September 1, 2011 at 6:36 pm

      I’m sorry to hear about your wife SP. My hugs and best wishes to her!!
      i’m so p**sed! Take a few hours off and come back to THIS?!?!?
      LORD/GOD help us!! They know not what they do!!


      Report Comment

      • Sickputer
        September 1, 2011 at 6:54 pm

        It will be OK… The bad part is people in America can rarely get any legitimate pain relief medication because the docs are all scared of Big Brother. One advantage for people living in “less civilized” countries. Patients suffer in America unless their doc is a family member.

        As Jack Nicholson said in Easy Rider: “You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I can’t understand what’s gone wrong with it.”


        Report Comment

        • Whoopie Whoopie
          September 1, 2011 at 6:58 pm

          Chronic Pain here. So I hear ya.
          I want to move to Venezuela and live in the Trees with the monkeys. Oh and O’s Health Care Bill: SCREW THAT! Did nothing for ANYBODY.


          Report Comment

    • NoNukes NoNukes
      September 1, 2011 at 10:21 pm

      Sickputer, Best wishes for your wife, I hope that she feels better. Sorry about the dust and worry.


      Report Comment

  • AustralianCannonball
    September 1, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    I built this site some of you know about to help with Fukushima updates. It is 1 month old.

    http://australiancannonball.com/

    Can you please email to friends and family. I’ve never built a website before and it’s hard in the early stages to get people to even know it exists. Google does not exactly prioritise news about Fukushima. I have between 200 and 500 visitors a day. Normally its closer to 250. I appreciate every single person who does come to the site but I’m feeling like I want to get this stuff out there even further. I mean millions of people should care about this situation.

    I could chug away for many months and not ask for help but I’m going to humble myself and ask. I have a 1 and a 2 year old plus work full time so I only provide basic updates. Stuff you can find on YouTube or searching Google. The main benefit is getting it into one area to save others searching.

    The good news is we still have enenews that seems very busy so the word is still getting out. And to be fair enenews has been covering this since March so if I think I’m tired I wonder how they feel!

    We could be at this for 10 years!


    Report Comment

  • Jebus Jebus
    September 1, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Here is a good read on North Anna NPP…

    http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0219/ML021910060.pdf

    It’s dated 6/02 and talks about the fault under the plant. Must read all…


    Report Comment

    • Jebus Jebus
      September 1, 2011 at 7:21 pm

      This is interesting from that PDF. Remember that the plant reportedly recieved a PGA of .5 or better, over half of one earth gravity. More than 1g and things are airborne…

      2.5.2.3 Design Basis Earthquake
      The North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and design were completed prior to the promulgation of Appendix A to 10 CFR 100. Consequently, the term “design-basis earthquake,” as used in this report, has the meaning it had prior to December 1973 when Appendix A to 10 CFR 100 became effective.
      The design basis earthquake (DBE) for the North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 was established by assuming that an earthquake equivalent to the largest shock associated with the Arvonia Syncline might occur close to the North Anna site area. With the epicenter of a shock similar to the 1875 MM I-VII moved to the vicinity of the site, it was estimated that the maximum horizontal ground acceleration at rock surface would be less than 0.12g.
      Accordingly, the design basis earthquake for Seismic Class I structures founded on rock was established as 0.12g for horizontal ground motion, and two-thirds (0.08g) that value for vertical ground motion.
      For Seismic Class I structures founded on rock, analyses for earthquake motion were made using response spectra developed by enveloping the response spectra, for various degrees of damping, of the east-west and north-south components of the Helena (1935) earthquake and the southeast component of the Golden Gate record of the San Francisco (1957) earthquake, all normalized to 0. 12g for the DBE. For Seismic Class I structures founded on saprolite more than 15 feet thick, these analyses for earthquake motion were normalized to 0.18g for the DBE to provide for calculated amplification through the overburden. The response spectra are shown on Figures 2.5-12 and 2.5-14 of the North Anna Power Station UFSAR.
      Revision 3—06/02
      2-29
      Tr
      Revision 3–06/02 North Anna ISFSI SAR 2-30
      The amplification of earthquake motion through the overburden was computed using a lumped-mass spring system with model superposition.
      Based on the two-to-three pulses of strong ground motion for the San Francisco, California (1957), and Helena, Montana (1935), earthquakes, a conservative estimate of strong ground motion pulses to be experienced at the North Anna site is four to five pulses of strong ground motion for the operating-basis earthquake and eight to ten pulses of strong ground motion for the design-basis earthquake.
      The results of the regional seismicity and structural geologic update for this report have not provided any basis for modifying the original seismic design basis for the site. Additionally, continued seismic monitoring in the region surrounding the site over the last 20 years has not provided any basis to associate the minor seismicity of the region with either Lake Anna or the fault at the North Anna Power Station. The North Anna Power Station seismic design provides adequate conservatism for seismic Class I Structures at the North Anna Power Station.


      Report Comment

    • Jebus Jebus
      September 1, 2011 at 7:22 pm

      I wonder what the vertical g’s were…


      Report Comment

  • Nukeholio
    September 1, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    Every day I log onto this site, I find/see information that shows things were way worse than “officials” predict. It is all about $$$.


    Report Comment

  • NeverAnyDanger
    September 1, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    and at 100000 times they don’t have to send anybody because there are no survivers…

    5.8 isn’t really all that big.

    “the NRC stated that each year the plant’s two reactors face a 1 in 22,727 chance of nuclear core damage from an earthquake.”

    That sounds good on the surface but these kind of statistical probabilities aren’t really useful in accessing risk or modeling what happens in the real world. How many “we never thought that../it can’t happen” sorry statements have we heard in the last few years?

    They can’t really call all these catastrophes black swans either. That assumes that the nuclear power plant or whatever it is is actually in pristine condition, well managed and well maintained so it can at least withstand the short-sighted design standards it was (supposedly) built to.


    Report Comment

  • Whoopie Whoopie
    September 1, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    Believe it or not…we’ve got one who is Anti-Nuclear arguing with ME on this thread!!
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/japan-earthquake-tsunami-warning-_n_931417.html
    Maybe I’m missing IT’s point…but why argue with someone (me) who posts day in and day out FROM HERE TIL FOREVER? I’m going to BED. I’m pissed.


    Report Comment

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue
    September 2, 2011 at 8:21 am

    Just wondering if the topic of (sheepies?) people who will not discuss Fukushima or say “what can you do about it, so who cares” which is a reply I received after posting a site which makes a plea to our representatives in office concerning our nuclear waste disposal… on Facebook. Thanks


    Report Comment

«  
  »