
at least here,,,
by dean 8/24/2011 10:49:11 PM

@elainekirk ::HEADDESK:: Let me know if there is a news link for that, will add it to tomorrow's update.
by lillymunster 8/24/2011 10:50:17 PM

North Anna and Surry, Power Stations - License Renewal Application
Renewed License Issued 03/20/2003.... so WHY DID NRC renew the liscense of a plant over a fault line...
by dean 8/24/2011 10:50:51 PM

@dean wow. Epic failure.
by lillymunster 8/24/2011 10:52:23 PM

dangggggggggggggggggg
by dean 8/24/2011 10:53:11 PM

they showed what a failure would look like in the simulator
by dean 8/24/2011 10:53:28 PM

lights out
by dean 8/24/2011 10:53:31 PM

@lillymunster
TEPCO predicted 10m tsunami before disasterJapan's nuclear regulator says the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant predicted an over 10-meter-high tsunami in 2008, but failed to report its prediction to the government until just before the March 11th disaster.
A spokesperson for the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency told reporters on Wednesday that the Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, reported the prediction to the agency on March 7th.
TEPCO says it made the estimation in 2008 when calculating the maximum tsunami height in the event of a very powerful earthquake near the plant.
The maximum possible wave height originally assumed by TEPCO when it designed the plant was 5.7 meters.
The agency says it ordered the company to submit a detailed report as quickly as it could and suggested the need to reform the facilities when the company provided the prediction.
The agency's official in charge of nuclear disasters, Yoshinori Moriyama, says it takes seriously its failure to fully predict the possibility of a major tsunami before the disaster.
TEPCO says it didn't mean to disclose the assessment since it was a tentative calculation for research purposes based on a simulation.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 20:07 +0900 (JST)
www3.nhk.or.jpTEPCO reported possibility of huge tsunami to gov't before March 11TOKYO, Aug. 24, Kyodo
Tokyo Electric Power Co. calculated in 2008 that a tsunami higher than 10 meters could hit its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant but has since taken no countermeasures, officials at the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency said Wednesday.
A manager at the utility, known as TEPCO, reported the calculation to the agency verbally on March 7 this year before the magnitude-9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami hit the plant on March 11, the officials said.
The agency instructed TEPCO to adopt countermeasures.
english.kyodonews.jpby Edano 8/24/2011 10:54:28 PM

@ lilly.. please try to get that report and if we could only show it on here that would really be nice
by dean 8/24/2011 10:54:58 PM

Dean you must be getting a different broadcast of CBS
by lillymunster 8/24/2011 10:56:13 PM

it's cnn
by dean 8/24/2011 10:56:36 PM

www.nrc.gov this is the nureg document for safety evaluation report when anna was given a license renewal.... now.. let me see what it says for seismic word search
by dean 8/24/2011 10:57:34 PM

gah, read it wrong! I will see if they put that on the website later or replay it
by lillymunster 8/24/2011 10:57:37 PM

Seismic II/I considerations..... these are the seismic levels for considerations at anna
by dean 8/24/2011 10:58:58 PM

@lillymunster edano has given some English links I have Japanese
mainichi.jp and
t.co the difference between English and Japanese is the communications Japanese reports say nisa's response to the info was to say virtually 'hide it'
by elainekirk 8/24/2011 11:00:22 PM

dinner time
by dean 8/24/2011 11:03:21 PM

@Majj I wonder if that is why the crane has been there the past few days
by elainekirk 8/24/2011 11:20:20 PM

@ lilly.. I don't see where they even mention anything about a plant being on or near a fault line for the safety evaluation report for reliscensing... all they say is that what needs to be built to seismic I or II requirements is done to meet the INTENT of the requirement
by dean 8/24/2011 11:58:21 PM

@ariadne I find it incomprehensible they are saying the new method will be more effective, we are 5 months doen the line and all it says to me is that they waited , using an inefficient cooling system, so the only conclusion is that they expected it to start cooling and it didnt and it has now melted and being mox the melt hasnt slowed and is no longer accessible so they are going to try using the original core sprayers in the hope the water will follow the path of the fuel and control the melt but thats just me as a non techi
by elainekirk 8/24/2011 11:59:26 PM

@dean Wow. The NRC has some explaining to do.
by lillymunster 8/25/2011 12:00:38 AM

Do you have a link for what your looking at?
by lillymunster 8/25/2011 12:00:48 AM

@dean they won't have expected this to come out at this time and by this means - there needs to be a lot of publicity giving people enough information to base questions on we cant let them bury this
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 12:01:28 AM

www.nrc.gov this is the nureg document for safety evaluation report when anna was given a license renewal.... now.. let me see what it says for seismic word
search
by dean 8/25/2011 12:04:01 AM

@dean do you know the nureg number?
by lillymunster 8/25/2011 12:06:16 AM

@elainekirk Oh I have a plan <evil grin> :-)
by lillymunster 8/25/2011 12:06:48 AM

@lillymunster sounds intriguing :)
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 12:07:46 AM

www.nrc.gov @ lilly this is the nureg document
by dean 8/25/2011 12:11:54 AM

Thanks Dean!
by lillymunster 8/25/2011 12:12:31 AM

lilly.. so word search for SEISMIC.. and then INTENT... the nuclear field adopted that word... it doesn't meet the requirement but meets the intent of the requirement
by dean 8/25/2011 12:16:54 AM

The top 10
Here are the 10 nuclear power sites with the highest risk of an earthquake causing core damage, showing their NRC risk estimates based on 2008 and 1989 geological data.
1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.
2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.
3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.
4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.
5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.
6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.
7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.
8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.
9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.
10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.
www.msnbc.msn.comIt also list all the other reactors by risk
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 12:19:56 AM

be back.. I need to pack for travel in the morning
by dean 8/25/2011 12:21:03 AM

@es I saw tepco have been given a new area to test but still near the plant is anyone testing the water further out, I find it frightening that nobody is qualifying tepcos readings they do all the evac zone too
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 12:32:10 AM