ScribbleLive

@bojack54 That is certainly not what I wanted to see first thing in the morning. Yikes! Thanks for posting it. :-)

ATT from the quiet period @Luisa posted daiichi diagrams www.tepco.co.jp
and @radioguy posted more fuku facts released by meti mdn.mainichi.jp

@Edano oh but Edano they will put drains in to solve that problem ;)

good morning to all

@ lilly.. I was thinking.. "if" we dig deep enough into North Anna with our research we may dig right into an active fault line... OOPS..

checking it now

@ lilly ... read the first report listed for North Anna... interesting stuff

The following CR’s were initiated during the first phase of the assessment:
• CR417940, IER L1-11-1, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Station Fuel Damage Caused
by Earthquake
• CR418070, SAMG Refresher Training Not Complete
• CR418115, Equipment required for B-5-B not available on site (88kW portable
generator failed)
• CR418290, Manual chain to open roll up door for warehouse does not work
• CR418339, Unit 2 penetration junction boxes not labeled
• CR418458, Identified during the B.5.b the following requirements for SEGTSC, “TSC
Response - Security Event Severe Accident Mitigation,” attachment 3, “Alternate
Instrumentation Methods”
• CR418515, Update procedures 0-PT-171.5 and SEGTSC
• CR418528, Deficiencies discovered during I&C B.5.b Walkdown of 0-PT-171.5,
“SEGOPS/SEGTSC Equipment Inspection,” Attachment 2, “Instrument and Controls
Equipment,”

This is the NRC letter discussed yesterday about public input on seismic reviews at US NPP

NRC SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT ON DRAFT GENERIC LETTER REGARDING
UPDATED SEISMIC ANALYSES FOR U.S. NUCLEAR REACTORS
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is seeking public comments on a draft Generic
Letter that would require U.S. nuclear power plants to re-examine their sites’ seismic risk and
provide that information to the NRC.
Comments on the draft letter, published today in the Federal Register and available on
regulations.gov, will be accepted until Oct. 31. The draft letter will soon be available in the
agency’s electronic document database, ADAMS, by entering ML111710783 in the database’s
search engine. The staff expects to hold a public meeting on the draft letter in mid-October to
gather comments; meeting details will be announced separately in the next several weeks.
The letter represents the next step in the staff’s ongoing multi-year examination of
updated seismic hazard information for the eastern and central United States, through the NRC’s
Generic Issues program. This effort, labeled GI-199, began long before the events at the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japan and the recent Virginia earthquake. GI-199 was
prompted by the seismic analyses included in applications from 2003 related to new reactor
activity. The NRC issued an Information Notice in September 2010 regarding GI-199, including
the agency’s conclusion that existing plant designs safely account for possible earthquakes. The
notice is available in ADAMS by entering ML101970221 in the database’s search engine. More
information on GI-199 is available on the NRC website.
Interested parties can submit comments on the draft letter through regulations.gov, using
docket number NRC-2011-0201. Comments can also be submitted, referencing NRC-2011-
0201, by mail to Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB),
Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments via fax can be sent
to RADB at 301-492-3446.
The NRC staff will consider the comments before finalizing the Generic Letter, which the
staff expects to issue near the end of the year. The draft letter’s approach would have U.S.
nuclear power plants perform their analyses within either one or two years, depending on the
analysis method used, and deliver their results to the NRC. The agency will then determine
whether additional actions are necessary

I asked rockhopper about a tweet link and thisis her reply the link was translate.google.com
@ikrockhopper
@ElaineKirk The first box is about the news I tweeted tonight. Hosono said that the final disposal site should be outside of FKSM.
@ElaineKirk in order to 'share' the pain of FKSM. Many angry Ty about the comment now, like Why not TEPCO& gov share the pain w/ FKSM first!
@ElaineKirk The 2nd box is related to it, but a news one week ago. gov decided to allow debris and ash up to 100,000Bq to landfill
@ElaineKirk Before that debris &ash >8000 had to be stored, but no space for storage, and gov make the stupid decision.

The NRC letter with links to the documents and comment input page etc. can be found here: www.nrc.gov

The letter represents the next step in the staff’s ongoing multi-year examination of updated seismic hazard information for the eastern and central United States, through the NRC’s Generic Issues program. This effort, labeled GI-199, began long before the events at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japan and the recent Virginia earthquake. GI-199 was prompted by the seismic analyses included in applications from 2003 related to new reactor activity. The NRC issued an Information Notice in September 2010 regarding GI-199, including the agency’s conclusion that existing plant designs safely account for possible earthquakes...... WITH emphasis on "safely account for possible earthquakes".. hmmmmm

This link posted further down really is scandalous. The PM's office had a report from NISA hours after the quake that showed exactly when and that fukushima reactors would melt down. So all the denials that anything was wrong were not incompetence. mdn.mainichi.jp

@ lilly, first off I think they need to define what method will be applied, there are many methods such as probabilistic, deterministic etc, each with varied approaches to complex analyses results... most of the time, if your the NPP owner you would want to drive the analyses based on the results which would determine how much money you need to put out to fix things. On the other hand we would want them to perform the most conservative seismic analysis which would most likely end up with many results that the NPP owner would challenging and say are not able to be done with out lots of cost or that don't apply to their facility. So there starts the game of negotiating and determining the minimum of what has to be done... a time line to do a graded approach (which lets the owner stretch things out over a long time) and finally a document which essentially
says we understand the risks but we will allow operation.

www.nrc.gov document is an example of the complexities involved with seismic.....

www-pub.iaea.org @ all this is a good write up on the seismic scram system and instrumentation used...

I will return..