Skip to main content

Seabrook Nuclear Plant Not Impacted by New England Earthquake

By Eric McErlain
The USGS is reporting that a minor earthquake struck Maine near the town of Lake Arrowhead shortly after 7:00 p.m. this evening. The nuclear power plant closest to the epicenter of the quake, Seabrook, which is in the midst of a refueling outage, declared an unusual event in response. The following is an official statement from NextEra Energy, the owner of the plant:
This evening, by procedure, Seabrook Station declared an unusual event due to the seismic activity felt throughout the region. An unusual event is the lowest of four Nuclear Regulatory Commission emergency classifications.

The plant has been and is currently shut down in a planned refueling outage. There has been no impact to the plant from the earthquake and our outage activities have not been affected in any way. We expect to exit from the unusual event shortly.

By way of background, Seabrook is designed to withstand the strongest earthquake ever experienced in New England, and then some.
Thanks to the team at NextEra Energy for getting out the word.
Labels:

Comments

jim said…
Too bad the media (mis)uses these event reports as if to say "We're reporting that the nuclear plant was slightly less dangerous and hazardous today only because it wasn't operating during the quake -- Thank God."

James Greenidge
Queens NY
October 18, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Anonymous said…
Please stop over-generalizing about media coverage of nuclear power. I know it's a pet target of the right, but as usual you're long on criticism, short on proof.

Can you link some articles saying what you claim they said? I'll check back.
October 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous said…
So exactly what was the design basis earthquake that Seabrook is supposed to be able to withstand without releasing materials off site..other than of course their ongoing NRC approved releases.
October 19, 2012 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous said…
Your story peaked my interest!

So exactly what was the level of earthquake that Seabrook is supposed to be able to withstand without releasing materials off site..other than their ongoing NRC approved releases.
How much more is Seabrook designed to withstand than the earthquake history suggests?
Exactly what in a nuclear facility needs to meet seismic standards.
Who sets seismic standards, and on what data is this standard set?

What is expected to happen if a quake exceeds the design basis of a plant?
What specific parts are most vulnerable, and which would cause the greater damage to the plant, to environment and people on site and off site?

Await your reply, links to sources that can answer questions your article inspired, or elucidating comments from other readers..
October 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM
Anonymous said…
Still waiting to see links to some of those alleged horribly biased media stories on this? I'm not seeing them.
October 22, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Anonymous said…
That version of the NRC fact sheet on seismic issues is way out of date. The agency is now requiring US nuclear power plants to update their seismic assessments in the wake of new data from the US Geological Survey and the Fukushima I accident in Japan. Here's a more recent version. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-seismic-issues.html
October 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM
Anonymous said…
Sorry, that's the same fact sheet link. Here are details on the seismic assessments: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12053A340.pdf
October 22, 2012 at 3:36 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more