@lilly.. it would probably be interesting to research the first MARK 1 design as performed in USA, then go forward to what contractually was done with Japan, the introduction of the Kajima, then the design changes made early on by TEPCO and finally reaction of TEPCO to subsequent upgrades or design changes to improve the safety of the facility
by dean 7/1/2011 1:29:20 PM
@dean The reactor units that GE built 100% for TEPCO were to GE design standards. They sold #1 at Fuku as turn key and would not let TEPCO make any changes. The later units may have had some changes since other companies were involved. What is Kajima? Have not heard of that before. Do we have a list of all of GE's upgrade and revision suggestions they made in the US to those older original units? That could be used to compare against what we can find out about the Japan units.
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 1:37:40 PM
Bojack's link is working. This from the article seems almost bizzare. They put the switching in an outbuilding? "The tsunami exposed an Achilles heel in the design of some of the plants: the questionable placement of a single kitchen-table-size electric-switching station. At newer plants, the station was in a robust building that also housed the reactor. In others, it stood in a poorly protected outbuilding-a relic of the original design. When the tsunami hit, those switches were knocked out, rendering operating generators useless. "
Does anyone know offhand what US units were the original mark 1 units?
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 1:40:36 PM
@lilly, wiki says that KAJIMA was the contractor that built the plants
nuctrans.orgby dean 7/1/2011 1:41:40 PM
We would have to actually get the changes made in the USA for the GE design as revisions were being made, then , look at the actual reactor that was sold via the GE design (Ebasco was only the architectural contractor), then we would have to sort out what was cut out or added in by the TEPCO and the minor changes made during the construction done by KAJIMA. it's probably not impossible to do but will take some research to tie all the links together.. also, TEPCO made several modifiations/upgrades to the facility based on whether they thought it was necessary and affordable.
by dean 7/1/2011 1:44:51 PM
@dean Kajima just built. GE called the shots on the first two. There are other articles that mentioned when GE was doing the first ones they dictated everything and any changes would void any sort of warranty on the units. The subsequent units could have had more modification but by then GE had made some IIRC?
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 1:45:01 PM
So what would be the best route to gather this kind of data? Full blueprints are almost impossible to find, could a FOIA be done to the NRC to get them? Possibly would change orders or upgrade notices from GE be public record somewhere? Would they be digital now or paper only? Any thoughts on other places that might have these kinds of documents?
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 1:50:09 PM
Something else very telling about the known risks with the old units. When they built #5 it was up on a higher plateau and has outside concrete bracing on the building. TEPCO knew when they build 5 that the others had insufficient
design
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 1:51:42 PM
@lilly.. GE has been pretty forthcoming on information and has a spokesperson, a request could be made to them with a list of items such as what was included in the revision changes to the main design, what responsibilities did GE have contractually with japan and interface with the builder etc. then, try to piece together design changes made by TEPCO since #1
by dean 7/1/2011 1:52:58 PM
@dean hmm, might not be a bad idea since GE has been trying to shuffle blame off of themselves. If their documents show they did things that warned TEPCO or changes GE told TEPCO and never were done, GE might be cooperative.
Does Japan have a freedom of information process?
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 1:56:19 PM
Several utilities and plant operators also threatened to sue G.E. in the late 1980s after the disclosure of internal company documents dating back to 1975 that suggested that the containment vessel designs were either insufficiently tested or had flaws that could compromise safety.
The Mark 1 reactors in the United States have undergone a variety of modifications since the initial concerns were raised. Among these, according to Mr. Lochbaum, were changes to the torus — a water-filled vessel encircling the primary containment vessel that is used to reduce pressure in the reactor. In early iterations, steam rushing from the primary vessel into the torus under high pressure could cause the vessel to jump off the floor.
by dean 7/1/2011 1:57:00 PM
bo would know about that @lilly, I think GE hangs it "not liable" hat on based on the fact that TEPCO did not make all the changes identified in the 80's. I would bet that the initial contractural agreement removed GE from liability and Japan assumed possession of what design there was at that time and brokered this with contract representatives , then probably worked out a deal with GE to be a technical consultant during installation.
by dean 7/1/2011 2:00:16 PM
@dean this is yet another problem of the privatized side of public utilities. It is difficult to compel a private company to hand over information.
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:00:52 PM
@dean I had the impression that GE gradually backed out of a control situation over the years with TEPCO. Unit 1 was GE doing everything and teaching TEPCO the technology and as years went on and new units were built GE gradually was more out of the picture.
I have to wonder what ever happened to Ebesco's records since they are no more.
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:03:21 PM
www.csmonitor.com GE DEFENDS THEIR REACTORS in Japan
by dean 7/1/2011 2:04:29 PM
@lilly I haven't done much research on GE and the building of them.. you have lots more that I do on that.....I could dig in some and try to uncover some information to help
by dean 7/1/2011 2:05:53 PM
GE should have the final revision drawings used in the contract start with Japan and subsequent revisions ... if they will share them
by dean 7/1/2011 2:06:49 PM
@dean would those GE change suggestions to US reactors have to be submitted to the NRC is some manner? They may have record if that was required. Also trying to think where blueprints might be available. NRC? Local municipality to get permits?
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:11:04 PM
one point is that years of testing and design development were performed on the GE BWR reactor, in the 60's they had no sophisticated codes used to examine accidents and if they needed to see what if situations they would build facilities to test in a prototypical way ...
by dean 7/1/2011 2:11:25 PM
@ lilly all of that information would have been with the Atomic Energy Commission at the time or with GE
by dean 7/1/2011 2:12:08 PM
I was wondering what the AEC evolved into? I found references to that agency when researching the pathfinder reactor in SD.
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:13:00 PM
truthseekernz.blogspot.com @ LILLY.. for some history on AEC then evolving to NRC
by dean 7/1/2011 2:13:58 PM
So NRC likely inherited the AEC documents?
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:19:56 PM
I would think they should have @lilly but remember AEC basically dissolved for a couple of years and who knows how NRC came in and assumed ownership of all the work previously acquired
by dean 7/1/2011 2:22:29 PM
I have seen some reports where prior employees said that GE was in control ” Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Japanese official told IRNA in an exclusive interview in Tokyo that General Electric Company was fully in charge of one of six reactors of Fukushima nuclear plant while it cooperated with Japanese company Toshiba Company in manufacture of two other reactors of Fukushima nuclear power plant. ” however, I don't see definitive documents....
by dean 7/1/2011 2:28:51 PM
@dean they are in govt. records somewhere. I have been meaning to try to located the documents on Pathfinder. Might be a good way to determine where the records are.
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:29:15 PM
@dean Would some of the anti-nuclear groups possibly have blueprint sets of the older Mark 1 units?
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:30:44 PM
Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article -
www.ft.comThe effort is hampered, however, because the Mark 1 BWRs used at Fukushima were developed back in the 1960s. GEH has been trawling the memories of its retirees as part of the team of 1,000 experts it is drawing on for advice. “We’re not afraid to call for help from anyone,” says Danny Roderick, senior vice-president of new plant projects for GEH. “We will draw on any resource that will get us to the swiftest answer we can find.” SOME GE COMMENTS.. lost of the old gray hairs are being tapped for info
by dean 7/1/2011 2:33:31 PM
@lilly anti-nuc groups would not have that detailed of information I think that GE is the best ... and/or Japan
by dean 7/1/2011 2:34:35 PM
forget that link.. not sure when it popped in .. duh
by dean 7/1/2011 2:35:19 PM
So GE for revisions, possibly NRC, AEC archives or local municipality for blueprints, possibly something similar in Japan to get documents on their side....
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:37:27 PM
www.pennwellblogs.com @ lilly.. some historical reading I found
by dean 7/1/2011 2:41:37 PM
that's a good start lilly
by dean 7/1/2011 2:42:01 PM
I need to run to the office for a bit.. will return..
by dean 7/1/2011 2:46:45 PM
I'm not sure how to search and actually find documents but i found the national archive for the AEC
www.archives.govby lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:49:18 PM
I will be back in about 30min - have to get some work done off computer.
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 2:49:36 PM
@bo Thanks! It seemed to refer to certain ones being held in other cities rather than at the national archives in DC. I occasionally have the opportunity to go to DC but don't have one coming up soon. I will do some checking into obtaining copies.
by lillymunster 7/1/2011 3:24:55 PM
@estacion That worked, will save me some peace and serenity, the best news I've had since they started cooling the SFP's, Thanks estacion!by RBeaner 7/1/2011 1:29:05 PM
@lillymunster the National Archive docs are not available online, it is just a finding aid. You have to actually go to the archives, or pay a professional researcher there to find things. I have been to the NARA many times. I can't imagine the holdings will be online anytime soon, to extensive. But researchers who go there may later scan and post docs.by bo 7/1/2011 2:57:15 PM
Japanese Cancer Expert on the Fukushima Situation japanfocus.orgby Panserbjorne9 7/1/2011 3:07:31 PM
hudebnik
alblee
UKVal
Jonathan Keebler
Oliver (ScribbleLive)
kaykodh
Markfm
Angie
Mid Valley
Matt (ScribbleLive)
George Gibb
elainekirk
PKelley
bo
Edano
Deb
Pedro Jesus
IanGoddard