Article

2011-03-18 Science & Technology

Nukes Threatened by Quakes Worse Than Before

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2011-03-18 06:59|| || Front Page|| [11126 views ] Top

#1 The real risk to US nuclear power plants is age and over-regulation. Exposure to radiation over time tends to make a lot of the materials in the plants brittle, so they are supposed to have finite lifespans of about 30-50 years.

However, those lifespans are invariably extended many times over. And while the plants may still look good, appearances can be deceiving.

But a much worse problem is how plant construction and maintenance are hopelessly micromanaged by the DOE.

One horror story that came out of the Palo Verde plant was how after each individual pipe weld, a federal inspector would have to inspect it, which would take a few hours.

But the professional welders would be ordered to "look busy", so would weld, and re-weld, welded joints. This is a major no-no, as it significantly weakens the joint.

Even with sky high wages, a lot of these professional workmen would quit, because they couldn't stand their quality work being ruined by micromanagement.

Back in '92, there was an infamous DOE memorandum (.pdf file) about the process required for changing an emergency light bulb at a decommissioned nuclear facility.

It was so ridiculous that even Al Gore thought it was stupid.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-03-18 10:06|| 2011-03-18 10:06|| Front Page Top

#2 The New Madrid quakes of 1811-1812 were strongly felt over 130,000 square kilometers (50,000 square miles), and moderately across nearly 3 million square kilometers (1 million square miles), spreading through midwestern bedrock while still a territory. The historic 1906 San Francisco earthquake, by comparison, was felt moderately 16,000 square kilometers (6,000 square miles). It actually caused the Mississippi to flow backwards, terrifying the Indians, and while concentrated in MO, it was felt all the way to Boston and Maine and westward into Nebraska. If a quake of this magnitude happened today, with the populated cities and nuclear power plants in this region, the destruction would truly be the US' Armageddon. That said, I still feel living in the midwest to be the safest region possible and only spend a couple of bucks on Powerball ;)

Posted by Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2011-03-18 11:46|| 2011-03-18 11:46|| Front Page Top

#3 Peter Bradford, former NRC member, states on this video that this study will have to be revised in light of the Japanese quake and tsunami. He says that study was written based on earthquakes only, with the greatest scores given to those near high population zones.

http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4592928/top-10-us-nuclear-plants-facing-highest-quake-risk/?playlist_id=87485

For those who don't know,California is on the ring of fire and its nuclear plants are on the beach of the Pacific Ocean. In addition, if San Onofre had a problem there would be over 7 million people from the local area trying to evacuate all at once. Good luck with that.

The biggest issue is that the CA nuclear plants have been designed for a magnitude seven earthquake, which is clearly not designed robustly enough for California.

Posted by Black Charlie Chinemble5313 2011-03-18 12:48|| 2011-03-18 12:48|| Front Page Top

#4 And the CA plants have not been designed at all for a quake and tsunami occurring as part of the same disaster.

Posted by Black Charlie Chinemble5313 2011-03-18 12:51|| 2011-03-18 12:51|| Front Page Top

#5 I wonder how a Yellowstone supervolcanic eruption would affect US nuke plants? As if it mattered.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-03-18 15:36|| 2011-03-18 15:36|| Front Page Top

#6 So what would you think of any engineer who designed an (extremely unforgiving) nuclear power facility for a 7.0 earthquake in CA (which includes the safety factor), when the list of great earthquakes in the US looks like this:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/10_largest_us.php

Personally, I'd call them nuts. It's not like a big earthquake is a fantasy occurrence.

Posted by Black Charlie Chinemble5313 2011-03-18 16:08|| 2011-03-18 16:08|| Front Page Top

#7 And take a look at the Cascadia Subduction Zone quake:

Cascadia Subduction Zone
1700 01 26
Magnitude ~9

This earthquake, the largest known to have occurred in the "lower 48" United States, rocked Cascadia, a region 600 miles long that includes northern California, Oregon, Washington, and southern British Columbia. The earthquake set off a tsunami that not only struck Cascadia's Pacific coast, but also crossed the Pacific Ocean to Japan, where it damaged coastal villages. Written records of the damage in Japan pinpoint the earthquake to the evening of January 26, 1700.

Posted by Black Charlie Chinemble5313 2011-03-18 16:11|| 2011-03-18 16:11|| Front Page Top

23:49 OldSpook
23:05 Shieldwolf
22:56 trailing wife
22:45 lotp
22:33 gorb
22:07 mojo
21:58 linker
21:54 JosephMendiola
21:52 JosephMendiola
21:51 Frank G
21:34 phil_b
21:23 JosephMendiola
21:15 Dale
21:14 linker
21:13 JosephMendiola
21:12 Fi
21:07 Beavis
21:02 admiral allan ackbar
21:01 Swamp Blondie
21:01 JosephMendiola
20:57 CrazyFool
20:56 admiral allan ackbar
20:52 JosephMendiola
20:42 linker