Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 815

@alblee look forward to that are you having a good time?

[Thanks, @elainekirk. Not as much fun as when I'm onboard, heh heh heh. I'll try to catch up after compensating for some sleep deficit. - Alblee]
.
by elainekirk edited by alblee 4/23/2011 1:30:59 PM

These articles were posted late last night - worries about unit1 reactor and unit4 sfp withstanding water injection, water weight, especially during EQ. it's confusing, hearing that they would like to flood reactors possibly, then reading these. www3.nhk.or.jp
by Scilla 4/23/2011 1:31:41 PM

@elainekirk A 4in. flue pipe keeps the thing from blowing up. Gee, hadn't thought of that. duh
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:32:25 PM

@Jim I am looking for another paper about venting that will explain why I keep rambling on about it an came across that are you keeping it?
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 1:33:47 PM

elaine.. one thing about that report you posted for jim.. I wish they had one where the facility was hit with the 9 EQ, lost coolant LOCA, lost offsite power and had a loss of batteried..
by dean 4/23/2011 1:35:33 PM

@elainekirk Yeah. It's funny they didn't plumb the thing outside and didn't put a generator on the roof. This is really stupid and I know very little about nuclear plant construction.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:35:49 PM

Some solar panels to keep the batteries charged?
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:37:52 PM

Oh I guess that would send a bad signal having alternative energy sources around.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:38:53 PM

I hope this pushes the industry to reconsider those auxiliary systems supporting the reactor to be hardened just like the reactor.. seismic, codes, containment etc.

[Yes. Should have been a no-brainer for guys who watch over or babysit 30+ 40+ year old npps. - Alblee]
.
by dean edited by alblee 4/23/2011 1:39:53 PM

These reactors are too fragile. I read where they had to shut one down because too much grass and weeds got in the intake water channel.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:40:59 PM

lol Jim.. how bout a coal fired steam boiler hooked to a generator hooked to trickle charger on the batteries.. nice black plume of smoke
by dean 4/23/2011 1:41:19 PM

If NPPs were required to be insured, they'd have to conform to strict safety codes.

That would be silly.
by Rob in SF 4/23/2011 1:41:24 PM

@dean Indepent system sprayers over SFPs.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:41:40 PM

@dean Least you know it's running.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:42:30 PM

indeed
by dean 4/23/2011 1:42:43 PM

they test the crap out of those batteries, but they aren't worth poo unless they put them above the tsunami level... shaking my head @ in the basement
by dean 4/23/2011 1:43:37 PM

What I cannot understand is when you go to the other power companies in Japan they seem to have higher standards as norm and you have to wonder how the regulatory authorities failed to notice tepco's negligent attitude.

[ Would be cheap copout to say those plants were built when the regs were just such and such. Regulatory regimes should never remain static, but keep evolving even and especially for old plants. - Alblee]
.
by elainekirk edited by alblee 4/23/2011 1:43:48 PM

@dean In this town I lived in Colorado, they used a locomotive generator that they salvaged for backup. Put it in a museum kinda thing and ran it once in a while.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:44:41 PM

I'm more inclined to pull back the extensions of the older reactors in the world.
by dean 4/23/2011 1:44:49 PM

All npp's have to have their own fire brigade on duty 24/7 but wasnt there an excuse hyped by tepco that they had had to wait for the fire service
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 1:44:57 PM

that's the kind of thing that reuses a power source
by dean 4/23/2011 1:45:21 PM

@elainekirk apparently there's a long tradition of a far more insidious relationship than lax oversight...
by Rob in SF 4/23/2011 1:45:37 PM

@dean agreed they should all be reviewed
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 1:45:53 PM

@dean There is so much that is just elementary safety that didn't happen. An insurance risk manager would have looked at those things and yanked the policy....if there was one. I read in one of the articles yesterday the the mark 1 units in the US have no back up system to cool the SFP. That just blew my mind. I honestly think they need to shut down all these older Mark 1 units and review the back up and safety on everything else with a fine tooth comb. It is just common sense if your using something with that kind of damage potential that you have lots of redundant safety in place.
by Nancy 4/23/2011 1:46:46 PM

at the end of the day tepco well deserve to fall on this but unless the lack of regulatory control over their activities is addressed then the problem will repeat ad infinitum
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 1:47:41 PM

@Nancy Put NASA in charge. They'd have three backups for the backup.

[Wrong. No they don't. They've got four. - Alblee]
.
by Jim Carver edited by alblee 4/23/2011 1:48:06 PM

@nancy did you keep that one yesterday ??
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 1:48:34 PM

@elainekirk and it has to be international.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:48:47 PM

true nancy
by dean 4/23/2011 1:49:09 PM

@Jim Carver "I read where they had to shut one down because too much grass and weeds got in the intake water channel." Sounds like a neglected fish tank.
by Rob in SF 4/23/2011 1:49:16 PM

@jim funny you should say that , I am a nasa fan and do actually watch their site just in case they give some info a a glimpse of honesty would be so refreshing
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 1:49:53 PM

@Rob in SF Just mentioned that. Silly...who cleans the ditch anyway?
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:50:09 PM

@Jim Carver "Put NASA in charge. They'd have three backups for the backups" And all the feet would be mis-measured in meters...
by Rob in SF 4/23/2011 1:51:17 PM

@elainekirk They will tell the truth, but they will have all the facts first.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:51:19 PM

@Jim Carver My brother is working on an initiative in Colorado to put a simple referendum on the ballot requiring nuclear power plants to carry their own full-coverage liability insurance, without fees or taxes on the state or municipalities. It's a simple, two line referendum, that would garner instant public support after this, and basically kills the nuclear power plant industry in Colorado. I suggested another line that says that the cost of comprehensive safety and waste disposal plans must be included in the cost of the plant proposal.
by radioguy 4/23/2011 1:51:57 PM

@Rob in SF It was a mistake
, they admitted it. But look at all the good they've done.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:52:43 PM

for the most part I believe the nuclear plants in the USA are run safely. however, we've reanalyzed ourselves to the point of acceptance of lower safety margins for the sake of continued profits, we've changed the basic plant safety basis on many plants for the sake of converting to different fuels, MOX fuels, moved things that should be worked in outages to non outage periods. I say we look at all the exceptions done over the last 10 years should be tabled and hard decisions made ... many plants can no longer obtain quality level replacement components and so they have to do a commercial dedication form to say they are as good as NQA1 quality ... it's just time to re-evaluate
by dean 4/23/2011 1:52:58 PM

@radioguy Right on, and no new permits until disposal issues are dealt with for the life of the plant.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:54:27 PM

@elainekirk - the article about the Mark 1 flaws? I think I did. I put it on my facebook. Let me know if you want it put in news or something. Otherwise will archive.
by Nancy 4/23/2011 1:54:50 PM

@dean yep
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:55:11 PM

The public is aware of reactors, have a limited knowledge about radiation but never hear about the NON CONFORMANCE reports, incident reports, near misses, etc.. they should all have web sites for the power reactors where they repoprt to the "PUBLIC" and the NRC... let people see what it takes to operate and maintain one of those reactors. .
by dean 4/23/2011 1:55:38 PM

@dean I was looking at the report for my local one. Commanche Peak, lots 0+ 0- , whatever that means.
by Jim Carver 4/23/2011 1:57:26 PM

@dean Show one realistic estimate of the true costs of disposal and decommissioning and suddenly this is not only the most dangerous way to boil water, but the most expensive as well. They are scrambling trying to up the life cycle of these plants in large part because there's no realistic way to decommission them.
by radioguy 4/23/2011 1:58:25 PM

my comparison is.. they spend millions to build a reactor vessel which has to be hydrotested to 150% of design pressure and then operated at a pressure that is .75 of design... now, as the life time goes on we alow results of stress analysis to push us into the upper ranges and remove or safety margin.. plus.. those nozzles on that vessel.. even tho they UT them on rigid schedule are going to start internal cracking fro the helium gas built up inter granular and cause higherstresses .
by dean 4/23/2011 1:59:35 PM

@radioguy if there was a balance going on insurance could be had. There just isn't enough honest planning and conversation going on. Political oversight suffers some of the same corporate complicity here that there is in Japan. Oversight and the technical review sorta happens. I like the idea of having NASA or some NASA type entity that is independent looking for those holes in the technical logic. If fuel disposal was worked into the plan it would add another level of honesty. There are few other industries people would put in their back yard that are so risky they can't be insured. I honestly think they COULD be insured but it would take a massive change in how thing are reviewed, designed and approved.
by Nancy 4/23/2011 1:59:49 PM