First They Came for the Gas Pipelines. Then They Came for the Nukes…

North Anna nuclear power station

by James A. Bacon

Yesterday I highlighted a study by University of Virginia professor Bill Shobe purporting to show how Virginia can achieve a “zero carbon” economy by 2050. A key element for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions was re-licensing Virginia’s four nuclear power units — two at the North Anna power station and two at the Surry station — to provide reliable base-line capacity to offset the effects of intermittent power production from solar panels and wind turbines.

We cannot take it for granted, however, that Dominion Energy will win renewal of those licenses. The licenses for North Anna Units 1 and 2 expire in 2038 and 2040, at which time they will be 60 years old. Dominion would like to continue operating them for an additional 20 years. Foes of nuclear power hope to derail the renewal of the licenses for North Anna, which, located above a geologic fault line, shut down temporarily after a 2011 earthquake measuring 5.8 on the Richter scale.

Beyond Nuclear, the Sierra Club and the Alliance for a Progressive Virginia are seeking a formal hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel, according to The Central Virginian. The environmental groups say that because a new nuclear reactor at North Anna would have to meet a higher standard for withstanding an earthquake, an upgrade might be warranted for the two existing units also. 

“North Anna produces 21 percent of the electricity in Virginia,” said John Cruickshank, a member of the Sierra Club’s Piedmont chapter. “We know it’s not going to shut down any time soon. The question is, can it run safely for 80 years?”

Only one other nuclear facility in the United States has received a second 20-year extension from the NRC, and that plant is not in a known fault zone, he said. “The last environmental impact study was in 1996 or so, when they applied for the first extension. That work did not take into account what occurred in 2011.”

Cruickshank also raised the specter of the plant’s pipes and other components weakening over time. He urged the Nuclear Regulator Commission to lab-test selected equipment from the facility.

Dominion Energy officials insist that the nukes can continue to operate safely. But there is a deep reservoir of distrust and antipathy in the environmental movement and much of the public towards Dominion. In defeating the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Virginia environmentalists perfected the art of using endless legal challenges to delay and run up the cost of energy projects until they become economically unfeasible. In the case of Dominion’s nukes, expect foes to raise a never-ending list of environmental and safety fears and demand ever-tighter controls that will drive up the cost.

Meanwhile, you can count on solar and wind power to get a free ride. I have yet to read a single op-ed or a hear a single quote from the spokesman of a Virginia environmental organization express concern about the heavy metals contained in solar panels and wind turbines, the solar and wind supply chains that rely upon conscripted labor and child labor to mine the metals, or the systemic risks associated with an electric grid entirely reliant upon solar, wind, and battery storage. If Virginia is to have a carbon-free electric grid by 2050, the only sane way to do it is with nuclear power. Unfortunately, sanity is an extremely scarce commodity these days.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

119 responses to “First They Came for the Gas Pipelines. Then They Came for the Nukes…”

  1. djrippert Avatar

    Who builds nuclear reactors on a known earthquake fault line? Oh right, Dominion. And what regulatory body allows that? Oh right, The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond (with pockets full of Dominion cash).

    I’m with the environmentalists on this one. The abject corruption of our state government at the hands of special interests like Dominion translates into a need to prohibit the continuance or expansion of dangerous operations like nuclear reactors. Maybe PJM can sign up nukes in less corrupt states like North Carolina or Maryland. But Virginia? No thanks.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      I’m the first to point fingers at the legislators when warranted, but none of them had a vote in the NRC or even SCC reviews of North Anna years ago. There was a quake, and the reactor did what it was designed to do.

    2. “Who builds nuclear reactors on a known earthquake fault line?”

      Someone who knows how to design foundations and structures to withstand the likely effects of being located on an earthquake fault lines.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        or: ” Federal regulators and the operator of a Virginia nuclear power plant rattled by an Aug. 23 earthquake covered up knowledge of geologic faulting at the plant decades ago, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Sunday, citing a U.S. Justice Department memo.”

        and son of a gun, Jim says the enviros claim there is a “trust” issue…. dang!

  2. Ben Slone Avatar

    I’ve let the NRC know my thoughts on live extension for the NAPS. I live within 27 or so miles of the site. I hope to see the plant run until at least 2058, with maybe a new nuke or two in the offering there.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      They could be locations for small modular reactors to supplement the existing facilities, but the battle to build a new plant from scratch seems daunting. Having worked at NNS for 12 years, having perhaps a half dozen to a dozen working reactors in the yard at any given time (four carriers at one time for a period, plus the subs), one takes it all for granted. But the fear is real and has been stoked by experts. Expect some moron to mention Chernobyl, which was a very different and badly flawed design, or TMI, which of course caused no adverse health outcomes, let alone deaths. (Maybe panic attacks from the media hype.)

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        “But the fear is real and has been stoked by experts. ”
        If it’s real then it is information dissemination, not stoking.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          yeah, caught that also… experts at stoking fear? double entendre or Freudian slip?

          1. …or illogical conclusion on your part.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            what part of ” ? ” is “conclusion?

          3. Larry,

            First, there was no question mark on the “yeah, I caught that to”. If you were not agreeing with N_N then why did you write that statement?

            Second, I ignore most of your questions marks. You add a lot of question marks to almost all of your comments. I think you do it for one or more of three reasons:

            1. It keeps you from actually having to state a position of your own.
            2. It gives you an easy out if someone calls you on something – you never have to admit to being wrong..
            and/or,
            3. It is a passive-aggressive method of insulting someone, and then being able to deny you insulted them.

            NOTE: As of right now, #3 does not appear to be in play in this case.

        2. You made an illogical leap.

          He said the fear is real – he did not say the fear is well-founded.

          Is it information dissemination when some anti-vax group take advantage of people’s ignorance of medicine to stoke fears about vaccines?

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            He didn’t say how many nuclear incidents they have had at the yard. And, they have had them. I know of two. Now, to be clear, an incident is an accident without nuclear material. That was back in the Rickover days when everything was rehersed twice. You just KNOW they have become even more rigorous over the years since the ADM ran the show (wink, wink).

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Depends. If they have real information, then no. If you read it on Facebook then yes.

  3. Ben Slone Avatar

    I’ve let the NRC know my thoughts on live extension for the NAPS. I live within 27 or so miles of the site. I hope to see the plant run until at least 2058, with maybe a new nuke or two in the offering there.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      They could be locations for small modular reactors to supplement the existing facilities, but the battle to build a new plant from scratch seems daunting. Having worked at NNS for 12 years, having perhaps a half dozen to a dozen working reactors in the yard at any given time (four carriers at one time for a period, plus the subs), one takes it all for granted. But the fear is real and has been stoked by experts. Expect some moron to mention Chernobyl, which was a very different and badly flawed design, or TMI, which of course caused no adverse health outcomes, let alone deaths. (Maybe panic attacks from the media hype.)

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        “But the fear is real and has been stoked by experts. ”
        If it’s real then it is information dissemination, not stoking.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          yeah, caught that also… experts at stoking fear? double entendre or Freudian slip?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            what part of ” ? ” is “conclusion?

          2. …or illogical conclusion on your part.

          3. Larry,

            First, there was no question mark on the “yeah, I caught that to”. If you were not agreeing with N_N then why did you write that statement?

            Second, I ignore most of your questions marks. You add a lot of question marks to almost all of your comments. I think you do it for one or more of three reasons:

            1. It keeps you from actually having to state a position of your own.
            2. It gives you an easy out if someone calls you on something – you never have to admit to being wrong..
            and/or,
            3. It is a passive-aggressive method of insulting someone, and then being able to deny you insulted them.

            NOTE: As of right now, #3 does not appear to be in play in this case.

        2. You made an illogical leap.

          He said the fear is real – he did not say the fear is well-founded.

          Is it information dissemination when some anti-vax group take advantage of people’s ignorance of medicine to stoke fears about vaccines?

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            He didn’t say how many nuclear incidents they have had at the yard. And, they have had them. I know of two. Now, to be clear, an incident is an accident without nuclear material. That was back in the Rickover days when everything was rehersed twice. You just KNOW they have become even more rigorous over the years since the ADM ran the show (wink, wink).

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Depends. If they have real information, then no. If you read it on Facebook then yes.

  4. Very good analysis.

    I would add that environmentalists are also against hydro power. I point this out because it aptly demonstrates their lack of rationality on this issue.

    Here’s an example:

    “While an epic winter storm and devastating power outage takes a toll in Texas and other parts of the country, the push to remove the Snake River dams and the clean energy they provide rages on in Washington state.”

    “Something is definitely wrong with this picture.”

    “Snow dumped on the Tri-Cities this week, causing school delays, car accidents, stalled arrival of more COVID-19 vaccine and some closed services.”

    “But at least people in our community had power, heat, food and water, which in large part is because the Northwest’s complex hydroelectric power system helps keep the lights on even in extreme weather.”

    “Washington state provides more hydroelectric power than any other state in the country. It’s reliable and it’s carbon-free, but too often it is taken for granted.”

    “If anyone were to suggest removing wind turbines or solar panels from the Northwest power grid, people would “wig out,” said Todd Myers, the Washington Policy Center’s environmental director.”

    “But people continue to seriously consider taking out the four lower Snake River dams without fully realizing their critical importance to meeting the region’s power needs.”

    https://www.tri-cityherald.com/opinion/editorials/article249372790.html

    Damns can also provide a very clean way for short-term storage of power for use during peak periods of demand. Water is pumped up for storage.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The single greatest number of human fatalities from an energy project gone bad was an earthen hydro dam in China that failed, Russian design, shoddy construction. A renewable project. Imagine that. Snake River dams of course are not earthen….

  5. Very good analysis.

    I would add that environmentalists are also against hydro power. I point this out because it aptly demonstrates their lack of rationality on this issue.

    Here’s an example:

    “While an epic winter storm and devastating power outage takes a toll in Texas and other parts of the country, the push to remove the Snake River dams and the clean energy they provide rages on in Washington state.”

    “Something is definitely wrong with this picture.”

    “Snow dumped on the Tri-Cities this week, causing school delays, car accidents, stalled arrival of more COVID-19 vaccine and some closed services.”

    “But at least people in our community had power, heat, food and water, which in large part is because the Northwest’s complex hydroelectric power system helps keep the lights on even in extreme weather.”

    “Washington state provides more hydroelectric power than any other state in the country. It’s reliable and it’s carbon-free, but too often it is taken for granted.”

    “If anyone were to suggest removing wind turbines or solar panels from the Northwest power grid, people would “wig out,” said Todd Myers, the Washington Policy Center’s environmental director.”

    “But people continue to seriously consider taking out the four lower Snake River dams without fully realizing their critical importance to meeting the region’s power needs.”

    https://www.tri-cityherald.com/opinion/editorials/article249372790.html

    Damns can also provide a very clean way for short-term storage of power for use during peak periods of demand. Water is pumped up for storage.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The single greatest number of human fatalities from an energy project gone bad was an earthen hydro dam in China that failed, Russian design, shoddy construction. A renewable project. Imagine that. Snake River dams of course are not earthen….

  6. djrippert Avatar

    Who builds nuclear reactors on a known earthquake fault line? Oh right, Dominion. And what regulatory body allows that? Oh right, The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond (with pockets full of Dominion cash).

    I’m with the environmentalists on this one. The abject corruption of our state government at the hands of special interests like Dominion translates into a need to prohibit the continuance or expansion of dangerous operations like nuclear reactors. Maybe PJM can sign up nukes in less corrupt states like North Carolina or Maryland. But Virginia? No thanks.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      I’m the first to point fingers at the legislators when warranted, but none of them had a vote in the NRC or even SCC reviews of North Anna years ago. There was a quake, and the reactor did what it was designed to do.

    2. “Who builds nuclear reactors on a known earthquake fault line?”

      Someone who knows how to design foundations and structures to withstand the likely effects of being located on an earthquake fault lines.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        or: ” Federal regulators and the operator of a Virginia nuclear power plant rattled by an Aug. 23 earthquake covered up knowledge of geologic faulting at the plant decades ago, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Sunday, citing a U.S. Justice Department memo.”

        and son of a gun, Jim says the enviros claim there is a “trust” issue…. dang!

        1. That claim does not make sense on its face. The existence of a significant geological fault line running though Louisa County was known for decades, if not centuries, before the plant was built. How could the government and Dominion “cover-up” something that every single geologist in the country already knew about, and had probably studied on school?

          The next time you say “boogeyman” to someone to make fun of their concerns about something I am going to laugh in your face.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            did you see this part:

            ” Federal regulators and the operator of a Virginia nuclear power plant rattled by an Aug. 23 earthquake covered up knowledge of geologic faulting at the plant decades ago, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Sunday,

            citing a U.S. Justice Department memo.”

            do you read carefully?

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Here are some more details on the knowledge that Dominion and the feds had in the early 1970’s about the fault zone and the coverup of that knowledge. Sorry, Don, the Virginia state government had nothing to do with it.
          https://www.huffpost.com/entry/north-anna-nuclear-earthquake_n_1078870

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    here come de boogeymen… ! There ain’t no such thing as Global Warming but we gotta have those Nukes and pipelines… even though you could build gas plants in Western Va…

    When I hear folks who say they support Nukes – but they want to see SMRs – that’s basically an admission that we need to recognize that 60 year old Nukes had their safety issues not to mention if they sit on a fault.

    The people you really have to convince are the ones in the middle who are not the wacky enviro left.

    If they live in NoVa or Henrico – they’re probably okay with NA but don’t be proposing a plant near them cuz the wacko left will scare the bejesus out of them!

    Bill Gates says we can’t get to 2050 without nukes but he wants SMR also.

    Why can’t we see that as a win-win for both sides instead of flinging FUD ?

    We got some YES – but we don’t like the answer?

    Oh and all those slave labor heavy metal solar panels? Send them to North Anna….. problem solved.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar

    here come de boogeymen… ! There ain’t no such thing as Global Warming but we gotta have those Nukes and pipelines… even though you could build gas plants in Western Va…

    When I hear folks who say they support Nukes – but they want to see SMRs – that’s basically an admission that we need to recognize that 60 year old Nukes had their safety issues not to mention if they sit on a fault.

    The people you really have to convince are the ones in the middle who are not the wacky enviro left.

    If they live in NoVa or Henrico – they’re probably okay with NA but don’t be proposing a plant near them cuz the wacko left will scare the bejesus out of them!

    Bill Gates says we can’t get to 2050 without nukes but he wants SMR also.

    Why can’t we see that as a win-win for both sides instead of flinging FUD ?

    We got some YES – but we don’t like the answer?

    Oh and all those slave labor heavy metal solar panels? Send them to North Anna….. problem solved.

  9. See Germany for results.

  10. See Germany for results.

  11. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    I’m not willing to toss nukes away but I have a couple of points.
    North Anna’s location near a fault line is a serious problem. Central Virginia suffered an earthquake in 2011 that did affect North Anna. It shut down and later the NRC sent missives to every nuke in the country about North Anna’s experience.
    Also, you say this: “Meanwhile, you can count on solar and wind power to get a free ride.”
    Nuclear has been getting something of a free ride since the 1950s. Much of the research was done by the Navy with tax payer money. The Price Anderson Act set a limit for monetary awards after an accident.

    Peter

  12. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    I’m not willing to toss nukes away but I have a couple of points.
    North Anna’s location near a fault line is a serious problem. Central Virginia suffered an earthquake in 2011 that did affect North Anna. It shut down and later the NRC sent missives to every nuke in the country about North Anna’s experience.
    Also, you say this: “Meanwhile, you can count on solar and wind power to get a free ride.”
    Nuclear has been getting something of a free ride since the 1950s. Much of the research was done by the Navy with tax payer money. The Price Anderson Act set a limit for monetary awards after an accident.

    Peter

  13. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Since 1960, 23 dams collapsed in the US with roughly 350 lives lost.

    There are 91,000 dams in the US and roughly 15,000 to 16,000 at risk of failure.

    https://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/TechDev/DSOTechDev/DSO-99-06.pdf

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Pointing that out is distracting as hell to the more desirable FUD.

    2. And how many of those produce hydro-electric power?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Did you read it? It’s not the panels.
        “Solar panels installed with bare-copper grounding lugs can corrode.”

        It’s the installation. The panel frames are box extrusion of anodized aluminum. The ground lugs are copper with a steel bolt. Yahoo! Let’s throw as many different metals as possible into the mix.

    3. “A 22-year-old Russell man died of electrocution Monday after touching a wire as he worked on a roof for a firm specializing in solar panel installations.”

      https://nationvalleynews.com/2020/08/12/22-year-old-russell-man-electrocuted-working-roof/

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Panels are hot all of the time. Extra care is required. Even throwing a blanket over the panel is no guarantee you won’t get bit.

        My motto is “after sundown and with a blanket. Rubber gloves not optional.”

  14. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Since 1960, 23 dams collapsed in the US with roughly 350 lives lost.

    There are 91,000 dams in the US and roughly 15,000 to 16,000 at risk of failure.

    https://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/TechDev/DSOTechDev/DSO-99-06.pdf

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Pointing that out is distracting as hell to the more desirable FUD.

    2. And how many of those produce hydro-electric power?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Did you read it? It’s not the panels.
        “Solar panels installed with bare-copper grounding lugs can corrode.”

        It’s the installation. The panel frames are box extrusion of anodized aluminum. The ground lugs are copper with a steel bolt. Yahoo! Let’s throw as many different metals as possible into the mix.

    3. “A 22-year-old Russell man died of electrocution Monday after touching a wire as he worked on a roof for a firm specializing in solar panel installations.”

      https://nationvalleynews.com/2020/08/12/22-year-old-russell-man-electrocuted-working-roof/

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Panels are hot all of the time. Extra care is required. Even throwing a blanket over the panel is no guarantee you won’t get bit.

        My motto is “after sundown and with a blanket. Rubber gloves not optional.”

  15. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    One if the biggest dam bursts was at Buffalo Creek, West Virginia. Coal companies erected poorly maintained dams to hold coal waste. They broke in a heavy rain and killed 125 people. Strip mining by coal firms made the situation worse as it did away with vegetation that could have diminished rain water runoff. This led to tighter federal rules and thank God for that. I think it was 1972.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      There would have been one much, much worse, in Idaho, but it happened in midday and a crew detected the event with about an hour and a half warning. Had it been midnight instead, the likely toll would have been ~25,000.

  16. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    One if the biggest dam bursts was at Buffalo Creek, West Virginia. Coal companies erected poorly maintained dams to hold coal waste. They broke in a heavy rain and killed 125 people. Strip mining by coal firms made the situation worse as it did away with vegetation that could have diminished rain water runoff. This led to tighter federal rules and thank God for that. I think it was 1972.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      There would have been one much, much worse, in Idaho, but it happened in midday and a crew detected the event with about an hour and a half warning. Had it been midnight instead, the likely toll would have been ~25,000.

    2. and what about North Anna’s earthen dam?

  17. I don’t see too much US potential for Hydro but maybe some. I’d be curious how much more Hydro that Canada could swing our way.

    I am ambivalent on nukes, as Charlie Munger said yesterday, it is hard to weigh the extreme risks with probability that it will not happen. Certainly SMR is attractive but that is for special cases where a limited supply is needed. I don’t see SMR by the thousands doing our major power loads.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      hmm… all the discussions about forest and farmland LOST to solar but no biggie for hydro?

      and then this:

      ” Solar power could replace all US hydro dams using ‘just 13% of the space’

      Banks of solar panels would be able to replace every electricity-producing dam in the US using just 13% of the space, according to a new study.”

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-power-could-replace-all-us-hydro-dams-using-just-13-of-the-space

      tradeoffs. tradeoffs. 😉

      but heckfire if Global Warming is a hoax , why the heck are we arguing about Nukes?

      My bet is that Nukes will cost more than solar or hydro, right?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Yeah, but the lures just bounce off the panels. Don’t even ask about the skis. Panel front real estate ain’t worth a plugged nickel.

      2. Don’t tell California …they need cheap hydro and cheap drinking water…from out of state.

  18. I don’t see too much US potential for Hydro but maybe some. I’d be curious how much more Hydro that Canada could swing our way.

    I am ambivalent on nukes, as Charlie Munger said yesterday, it is hard to weigh the extreme risks with probability that it will not happen. Certainly SMR is attractive but that is for special cases where a limited supply is needed. I don’t see SMR by the thousands doing our major power loads.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      hmm… all the discussions about forest and farmland LOST to solar but no biggie for hydro?

      and then this:

      ” Solar power could replace all US hydro dams using ‘just 13% of the space’

      Banks of solar panels would be able to replace every electricity-producing dam in the US using just 13% of the space, according to a new study.”

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-power-could-replace-all-us-hydro-dams-using-just-13-of-the-space

      tradeoffs. tradeoffs. 😉

      but heckfire if Global Warming is a hoax , why the heck are we arguing about Nukes?

      My bet is that Nukes will cost more than solar or hydro, right?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Yeah, but the lures just bounce off the panels. Don’t even ask about the skis. Panel front real estate ain’t worth a plugged nickel.

      2. Don’t tell California …they need cheap hydro and cheap drinking water…from out of state.

  19. ““The last environmental impact study was in 1996 or so, when they applied for the first extension. That work did not take into account what occurred in 2011.””

    Of course a 1996 study did not take into account something that occurred in the future, but the existence of the fault zone in which North Anna was constructed was know well before 2011. Is this guy insinuating that engineers did not take the local geology into account during design of the plant?

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      It was a requirement of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to analysis the local geology when the licensee applied for its construction permit. My guess is that the fault was not “found” using the techniques at the time. But just guessing…

  20. “”The last environmental impact study was in 1996 or so, when they applied for the first extension. That work did not take into account what occurred in 2011.””

    Of course a 1996 study did not take into account something that occurred in the future, but the existence of the fault zone in which North Anna was constructed was know well before 2011. Is this guy insinuating that engineers did not take the local geology into account during design of the plant?

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      It was a requirement of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to analysis the local geology when the licensee applied for its construction permit. My guess is that the fault was not “found” using the techniques at the time. But just guessing…

  21. LarrytheG Avatar

    ” Utility Company Knew of Faulting at North Anna Nuke Site
    Company fined for false statements in plant’s licensing
    Published November 6, 2011 • Updated on November 6, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Federal regulators and the operator of a Virginia nuclear power plant rattled by an Aug. 23 earthquake covered up knowledge of geologic faulting at the plant decades ago, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Sunday, citing a U.S. Justice Department memo.

    Dominion Virginia Power, then operating as Virginia Electric and Power Co., told the former Atomic Energy Commission in June 1973 that “faulting of rock at the site is neither known nor suspected,” even though the company knew about the existence of faulting at the North Anna Power Station, the 1977 memo said.”

    https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/utility-company-knew-of-faulting-at-north-anna-nuke-site/1906066/

  22. LarrytheG Avatar

    ” Utility Company Knew of Faulting at North Anna Nuke Site
    Company fined for false statements in plant’s licensing
    Published November 6, 2011 • Updated on November 6, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Federal regulators and the operator of a Virginia nuclear power plant rattled by an Aug. 23 earthquake covered up knowledge of geologic faulting at the plant decades ago, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Sunday, citing a U.S. Justice Department memo.

    Dominion Virginia Power, then operating as Virginia Electric and Power Co., told the former Atomic Energy Commission in June 1973 that “faulting of rock at the site is neither known nor suspected,” even though the company knew about the existence of faulting at the North Anna Power Station, the 1977 memo said.”

    https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/utility-company-knew-of-faulting-at-north-anna-nuke-site/1906066/

  23. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    VEPCO lied about the fault line and were fined.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      yeah, but that’s past history and the enviros are hyping it as if it was real or something… 😉

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Not my fault.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        another crack like that…..

  24. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    VEPCO lied about the fault line and were fined.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      yeah, but that’s past history and the enviros are hyping it as if it was real or something… 😉

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Not my fault.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        another crack like that…..

  25. LarrytheG Avatar

    WayneS | February 26, 2021 at 1:42 pm |
    Larry,

    First, there was no question mark on the “yeah, I caught that to”. If you were not agreeing with N_N then why did you write that statement?

    Second, I ignore most of your questions marks. You add a lot of question marks to almost all of your comments. I think you do it for one or more of three reasons:

    1. It keeps you from actually having to state a position of your own.
    2. It gives you an easy out if someone calls you on something – you never have to admit to being wrong..
    and/or,
    3. It is a passive-aggressive method of insulting someone, and then being able to deny you insulted them.”

    Are these remarks about me as a person or discussion of the points? These are things that you “think”?

    Wayne, I’ve been meaning to talk to you about some of your mannerisms… you know? Might be some projecting going on? (that’s a question mark). 😉

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Wait?

      What’s that in the road… ahead?
      Whatcha got on… ya mind?

  26. LarrytheG Avatar

    WayneS | February 26, 2021 at 1:42 pm |
    Larry,

    First, there was no question mark on the “yeah, I caught that to”. If you were not agreeing with N_N then why did you write that statement?

    Second, I ignore most of your questions marks. You add a lot of question marks to almost all of your comments. I think you do it for one or more of three reasons:

    1. It keeps you from actually having to state a position of your own.
    2. It gives you an easy out if someone calls you on something – you never have to admit to being wrong..
    and/or,
    3. It is a passive-aggressive method of insulting someone, and then being able to deny you insulted them.”

    Are these remarks about me as a person or discussion of the points? These are things that you “think”?

    Wayne, I’ve been meaning to talk to you about some of your mannerisms… you know? Might be some projecting going on? (that’s a question mark). 😉

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Wait?

      What’s that in the road… ahead?
      Whatcha got on… ya mind?

  27. Ben Slone Avatar

    For a fun read, see https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1633/ML16336A150.pdf beginning on page 2-130 especially page 2-160 on…

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      is there a date for the doc..or did I miss it?

    2. Fun, indeed.

      Section 2.5.1.6 Conclusion

      Therefore, the staff concludes that the site is suitable with respect to the geologic and seismic siting criteria for new nuclear power plants.

      Section 2.5.2.6 Conclusion
      Therefore, the staff concluded that the site is suitable with respect to the vibratory ground motion criteria for new nuclear power plants.

      Section 2.5.3.6 Conclusion
      Therefore, the staff concluded that the North Anna 3 site is suitable with respect to the tectonic and non-tectonic surface deformation criteria for new nuclear power plants.

      Section 2.5.4.6
      Based on its review, the staff concludes that the applicant conducted sufficient site investigations and performed adequate field and laboratory tests and associated analyses to provide sufficient information describing soil and rock conditions underlying the COL site of North Anna 3; provided sufficient information to characterize the subsurface materials at the site; and presented and substantiated information to assess the stability of subsurface materials and foundations. The staff reviewed the engineering properties of subsurface materials at the proposed site and backfill materials to be used during construction, the assessment of bearing capacity, liquefaction potential, settlement, and lateral earth pressure, as well as the development of a shear wave velocity profile through the site, and concludes that the applicant adequately addressed the related COL items and ESP permit conditions. 2-238 Accordingly, the staff concludes that the applicant provided sufficient information to meet the relevant requirements of ESBWR standard design and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A (GDC 2); Appendix S of 10 CFR Part 50; and 10 CFR 100.23, and therefore Section 2.5.4 of the North Anna 3 FSAR is acceptable.

      Section 2.5.5.6
      Therefore, the staff concludes that the North Anna 3 site is suitable with respect to the criteria governing the stability of slopes.

  28. Ben Slone Avatar

    For a fun read, see https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1633/ML16336A150.pdf beginning on page 2-130 especially page 2-160 on…

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      is there a date for the doc..or did I miss it?

      1. As best I can tell the report is from some time in 2016. The license appears to have been issued in June, 2017.

    2. Fun, indeed.

      Section 2.5.1.6 Conclusion

      Therefore, the staff concludes that the site is suitable with respect to the geologic and seismic siting criteria for new nuclear power plants.

      Section 2.5.2.6 Conclusion
      Therefore, the staff concluded that the site is suitable with respect to the vibratory ground motion criteria for new nuclear power plants.

      Section 2.5.3.6 Conclusion
      Therefore, the staff concluded that the North Anna 3 site is suitable with respect to the tectonic and non-tectonic surface deformation criteria for new nuclear power plants.

      Section 2.5.4.6
      Based on its review, the staff concludes that the applicant conducted sufficient site investigations and performed adequate field and laboratory tests and associated analyses to provide sufficient information describing soil and rock conditions underlying the COL site of North Anna 3; provided sufficient information to characterize the subsurface materials at the site; and presented and substantiated information to assess the stability of subsurface materials and foundations. The staff reviewed the engineering properties of subsurface materials at the proposed site and backfill materials to be used during construction, the assessment of bearing capacity, liquefaction potential, settlement, and lateral earth pressure, as well as the development of a shear wave velocity profile through the site, and concludes that the applicant adequately addressed the related COL items and ESP permit conditions. 2-238 Accordingly, the staff concludes that the applicant provided sufficient information to meet the relevant requirements of ESBWR standard design and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A (GDC 2); Appendix S of 10 CFR Part 50; and 10 CFR 100.23, and therefore Section 2.5.4 of the North Anna 3 FSAR is acceptable.

      Section 2.5.5.6
      Therefore, the staff concludes that the North Anna 3 site is suitable with respect to the criteria governing the stability of slopes.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        A combination of aluminum wire and Federal Pacific Electric circuit breakers will do the same thing. And that’s what most of the Hylton homes built in Dale City are wired with.

        A self-destruct mechanism for low-quality tract houses.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        A combination of aluminum wire and Federal Pacific Electric circuit breakers will do the same thing. And that’s what most of the Hylton homes built in Dale City are wired with.

        A self-destruct mechanism for low-quality tract houses.

  29. Ben Slone Avatar

    It is the updated FSAR with a 1/18/17 date but with the clause of “Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 09, 2020.” It provides the analysis of the post M5.8 earthquake.

  30. Ben Slone Avatar

    It is the updated FSAR with a 1/18/17 date but with the clause of “Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 09, 2020.” It provides the analysis of the post M5.8 earthquake.

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      I was looking for the original FSAR and the preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) to learn what was stated for the construction permit and the operation license applications.

      But in a quick survey, I haven’t found it yet.

    1. Ben Slone Avatar

      I was looking for the original FSAR and the preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) to learn what was stated for the construction permit and the operation license applications.

      But in a quick survey, I haven’t found it yet.

  31. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    If Dominion wants to keep the nuclear option viable, it should engage in a long term education campaign. The public fear is really a case of “fake news.” The only nuclear accident that resulted in casualties was Chernobyl and that reactor was uniques and poorly designed. The progress in Small Nuclear Reactors is impressive and if cost can be competitive, they would be a better investment then a 176 square mile wind farm in the Atlantic.

    1. Yes, an open public forum would be great.
      No fake news here. There are plenty of documents that show lot’s of relief requests, exemptions and the fact that these facilities release radioactive effluents and gases on a routine operational basis, besides making highly radioactive waste that will remain dangerous for thousands of years.
      Great gift for the next 3000 generations.
      https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info.html

  32. PaulGunter Avatar

    North Anna upgrades are justified because the August 23, 2011 earthquake exceeded design specifications. Despite no damage, its the second punch that can cause the break. Despite North Anna Unit 3 seismic design upgrade for the same site and fault line, I doubt that it will ever be built, even though its combined construction and operation permit was approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It’s just too expensive, an estimated $19 billion for a single unit without a shovel in the ground. Given nuclear power’s decades record now, you can expect that price tag to only mushroom to how high is anybody’s guess. North Anna 3 was just one of more than 30 new nuclear power plants approved for construction and operation by NRC since 2006 in that “nuclear renaissance.” Fifteen years later, only two units in Georgia are under construction and they’re way over budget and far behind schedule. The others have been suspended, like North Anna 3, withdrawn, cancelled or abandoned as projects like V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3 with $9 billion is sunk cost stuck to South Carolina ratepayers. The CEO for the SCANA power company that cooked up the fiasco just pleaded guilty to fraud and a 2 year prison sentence and $5 million in restitution. He didn’t act alone.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, guess the nuke business ain’t cheap, or feasible.

  33. PaulGunter Avatar

    too bad you can’t recognize facts from spam. I am one of the intervenors in the North Anna application.

  34. The risks are real and growing.
    Not only are both reactors at North Anna sitting on top of a ancient fault line, they are also located in the VA Seismic Zone. The 5.8 earthquake that exceeded the plants design basis in 2011, came from a previously unknown fault. VA geologists have already stated we can expect more earthquakes and possibly an even larger one.
    Secondly, these reactors were designed to run for 40 years. Metal fatigue/ stress corrosion cracking and embrittlement are part of the ageing process.
    Crossing our fingers do not protect our health, safety and the future of our state. The consequences of an accident are colossal. Just look at Fukushima.
    3/11/21 will mark 10 years of the ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan and there is no end in sight.
    The reality is we are on borrowed time already. The sooner we close this plant down the safer we will all be.
    If the public was aware of all the issues regarding this plant, it would already be closed.

    https://wmblogs.wm.edu/cmbail/whose-fault-is-it-the-2011-virginia-earthquake-part-2/

    And the lie that nuclear energy is clean needs to stop.
    The whole nuclear chain is toxic, dangerous and CO2 intensive…from mining uranium, processing/enrichment…..to the back end of decommissioning and forever waste storage.

    1. Archived Nov 7, 1981
      Although progressive embrittlement of the pressure vessel has always been anticipated, it now appears that many such vessels will become susceptible to cracking long before reaching their 30- to 40-year lifespan. This problem, however, is neither as avoidable nor as correctable as you suggest.

      https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/07/opinion/l-if-the-pressure-vessel-of-a-reactor-cracks-084005.html?fbclid=IwAR0dlgsBWfsM6VeEMhdKTVuZIxvZ5QOwHfuObvc97LCxeRf4qFKAVR6dLqY

  35. Sheila Parks Avatar
    Sheila Parks

    The radioactive waste from nuclear power plants last millions of years and there is NO PLACE to store it. Unless you want to pay millions into eternity. Nuclear power plants cause leukemia and other cancers. Children who live near nuclear power plants have more cases of leukemia than children who do not – Dr. Fairlie, 2014. We MUST CLOSE ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND SMALL NUCLEAR REACTORS NOW AND NEVER EVER EVER NEVER BUILD ANOTHER ONE – UNLESS IT IS IN THE FRONT AND BACK YARD OF THOE PEOPLE WHO LIKE THEM AND ADVOCATE FOR THEM AND MAKE MONEY ON THEM

Leave a Reply