Fukushima Fukushima Management and Government Performance

[Dmytry]

Regarding culture - or rather attitude of industry and toward industry - I can't help but think of Minimata.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease#Democratizing_effects

Now that's one persons opinion, which may be valid and maybe shared. But in the 1940's - 1960's, I don't believe the questioning of industry was as strong as it was after the 1960's and the evolution of the environmental and civil rights movements.

That is just so bad :/ The worst bit is the instantiation of knowingly ineffective "water treatment" with continued emissions from 1959 to 1968 , and ostracising of the victims. How the water treatment fraud did go unrecognised for 9 years, until 4 months after the plant stopped using mercury catalyst and the commercial incentive for downplaying it had disappeared.
The first reactor at Fukushima was constructed around 1967 or so BTW.
There's been so many cases like this through the history.

 

[NUCENG]

"
N: First, you are right that I didn’t have the right number for a maximum historical tsunami. "
not only didn't you have right number, you didn't even have right order of magnitude.
"And you jumped on that as an excuse not to answer my question which was about engineering and management decision-making for an existing plant, and by extension government oversight of nuclear plants and responsibility for public safety. Read the problem again. The scientist threatens to go to regulators and the press. The topic of the thread was TEPCO and Government performance. You have stated your position that you don’t trust anyone, so I asked you to show how you could do it better. "

Perhaps the reason I do not trust them is because I can't really know for sure that I would do better in their shoes - haven't been in this situation - not because I am claiming I would do better? Have you ever thought about it this way? What is your point exactly - you are trying to make me self boast how i would do better, so you can then say - hey but you haven't been in their shoes?

I did not criticize their decision to do nothing about existing plant, btw. I criticized how the plant was constructed. Sorry if it is offtopic because the plant was constructed by US company. For the existing plant - well, I like to think that I would go to press and tell how regrettably this study affects my plant bla bla bla bla. I'd lose a lot of money, but I'd still have more than enough. I like to think I am good enough, but I can't claim it because I did not have to do this.

Good. That is an honest answer and I respect that. At last you are starting to see my point. I am not trying to trick you. I have been trying to get you to at least think of what it is like in their shoes. I know you haven't been there in this kind of situation and for that you should be thankful. Recognize that your distrust and fear is natural, but don't let it become an unconscious or knee jerk prejudice that others aren't trying to do the right thing. Give us the same respect you want for yourself.

Let's get past the deficiencies of TEPCO and design flaws at Fukushima. We have to fix that as best we can.

What do we do now? How should the plants be stabilized? Is the roadmap TEPCO issued workable? What should be done at other existing plants? Should new plants be built? Should Japan continue to depend on nuclear power for a significant portion of its energy production, What should we do about new plant designs and siting? Those specific topics should be carried over to other threads. Those are the kinds of challenges that engineers, managers, executives, regulators and political leaders in Japan and around the world are facing. You can be part of that decision-making process. And in my experience with the US nuclear industry your reasoned and informed input will be welcomed.

 

[Dmytry]

Good. That is an honest answer and I respect that. At last you are starting to see my point. I am not trying to trick you. I have been trying to get you to at least think of what it is like in their shoes. I know you haven't been there in this kind of situation and for that you should be thankful. Recognize that your distrust and fear is natural, but don't let it become an unconscious or knee jerk prejudice that others aren't trying to do the right thing. Give us the same respect you want for yourself.

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?
Suppose I was sure I myself would have shot that scientist, or bribed him, or something. Then I would trust you guys even less.

Give us the same respect you want for yourself.

I don't really need or want other people to trust me to try to do the right thing. I'd rather they use reason instead of trust. Less temptation for me. edit: and less edge for the competitors who do not do the right thing.
I won't trust you guys to do the right thing, and I do not ask you to trust me to do the right thing.

Let's get past the deficiencies of TEPCO and design flaws at Fukushima. We have to fix that as best we can.

What do we do now? How should the plants be stabilized? Is the roadmap TEPCO issued workable? What should be done at other existing plants? Should new plants be built?

Had the similar question answered for me already. My PC used to be powered 100% nuclear. Literally. I am in Lithuania, which used to have 90% nuclear energy mix, but the actual mix here would probably be 100% nuclear most of the time.
Those two RBMKs had to be shut down. I don't think that was a very good decision. For all the RBMK's flaws, nobody bleeps with RBMKs for sure, and it is a very seismically stable region, etc. Also, the reactor was upgraded (with significant power derating) to minimize positive void coefficient and eliminate positive SCRAM.

Should Japan continue to depend on nuclear power for a significant portion of its energy production, What should we do about new plant designs and siting? Those specific topics should be carried over to other threads. Those are the kinds of challenges that engineers, managers, executives, regulators and political leaders in Japan and around the world are facing. You can be part of that decision-making process. And in my experience with the US nuclear industry your reasoned and informed input will be welcomed.

Well in my opinion the cost benefit analysis would be strongly offset in the favour of the plant owner. The entire thing about families and kids who also live there - did not help with prior toxic accidents any. People have amazing capacity for self deception. There's enough pregnant women who don't stop smoking, and there used to be much more when the issue required some thinking to decide. Not impressed by reference to kids.

 

[NUCENG]

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?
Suppose I was sure I myself would have shot that scientist, or bribed him, or something. Then I would trust you guys even less.

I don't really need or want other people to trust me to try to do the right thing. I'd rather they use reason instead of trust. Less temptation for me. edit: and less edge for the competitors who do not do the right thing.

I won't trust you guys to do the right thing, and I do not ask you to trust me to do the right thing.

Had the similar question answered for me already. My PC used to be powered 100% nuclear. Literally. I am in Lithuania, which used to have 90% nuclear energy mix, but the actual mix here would probably be 100% nuclear most of the time.
Those two RBMKs had to be shut down. I don't think that was a very good decision. For all the RBMK's flaws, nobody bleeps with RBMKs for sure, and it is a very seismically stable region, etc. Also, the reactor was upgraded (with significant power derating) to minimize positive void coefficient and eliminate positive SCRAM.

Well in my opinion the cost benefit analysis would be strongly offset in the favour of the plant owner. The entire thing about families and kids who also live there - did not help with prior toxic accidents any. People have amazing capacity for self deception. There's enough pregnant women who don't stop smoking, and there used to be much more when the issue required some thinking to decide. Not impressed by reference to kids.

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?

No I didn’t say trust, I said respect and a little understanding. You were very close there for a minute.

Suppose I was sure I myself would have shot that scientist, or bribed him, or something. Then I would trust you guys even less.

Why? You shot him.

I don't really need or want other people to trust me to try to do the right thing. I'd rather they use reason instead of trust. Less temptation for me.

How many more layers of review, self-checking, independent verifications, regulatory revies approvals and inspections do we need before you realize that we don’t depend only on trust?

Had the similar question answered for me already. My PC used to be powered 100% nuclear. Literally. I am in Lithuania, which used to have 90% nuclear energy mix, but the actual mix here would probably be 100% nuclear.
Those two RBMKs had to be shut down. I don't think that was a very good decision. For all the RBMK's flaws, nobody bleeps with RBMKs for sure, and it is a very seismically stable region, etc. Also, the reactor was upgraded (with significant power derating) to minimize positive void coefficient and eliminate positive SCRAM.

I have colleagues who spent a great deal of time at Ignalina helping your operators and managers to develop emergency operating procedures for RBMKs. They reviewed designs to identify deficiencies that could be corrected. I know that they came back with a lot of respect for your operators and scientists. Others worked with the VVER design to perform similar upgrades. Shutting nuclear plants down removes one type of risk. How you replace that energy creates its own hazards. That is a political and economic decision and could be another thread.

Well in my opinion the cost benefit analysis would be strongly offset in the favour of the plant owner. The entire thing about families and kids who also live there - did not help with prior toxic accidents any. People have amazing capacity for self deception. There's enough pregnant women who don't stop smoking, and there used to be much more when the issue required some thinking to decide. Not impressed by reference to kids.

This is a serious question and not intended to be insulting. I have heard all my life that the Soviet Union degraded the importance of family as a means of achieveming proletarian socialism. (right term?) Supposedly the approach was to start with the children and build the socialist utopia from those seeds.

Is that why you are denying that family, friends, and community has been the motivation and focus of civilization since we came down from the trees? What else makes life precious? I fear that is a chasm I will never be able to cross. That is a way of thinking I just don't understand and would never want to. Is that why you trust noone? Even in nature a bear sow will defend her cubs to the death.

 

[Dmytry]

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?

No I didn’t say trust, I said respect and a little understanding. You were very close there for a minute.

You were speaking of my distrust.

Why? You shot him.

Point is - no reason to trust random people to be better than oneself.

How many more layers of review, self-checking, independent verifications, regulatory revies approvals and inspections do we need before you realize that we don’t depend only on trust?

Well, you are appealing to trust a lot. When i make the point that reviews may not be effective, you appeal to trust.

I have colleagues who spent a great deal of time at Ignalina helping your operators and managers to develop emergency operating procedures for RBMKs. They reviewed designs to identify deficiencies that could be corrected. I know that they came back with a lot of respect for your operators and scientists. Others worked with the VVER design to perform similar upgrades. Shutting nuclear plants down removes one type of risk. How you replace that energy creates its own hazards. That is a political and economic decision and could be another thread.

Indeed. And a very different situation. A design mistake, not lack of any tsunami protection.

This is a serious question and not intended to be insulting. I have heard all my life that the Soviet Union degraded the importance of family as a means of achieveming proletarian socialism. (right term?) Supposedly the approach was to start with the children and build the socialist utopia from those seeds.

Is that why you are denying that family, friends, and community has been the motivation and focus of civilization since we came down from the trees? What else makes life precious? I fear that is a chasm I will never be able to cross. That is a way of thinking I just don't understand and would never want to. Is that why you trust noone? Even in nature a bear sow will defend her cubs to the death.

Actually the example I know to not have quitted smoking when pregnant is American. I was surprised, because in SU there was a strong anti-smoking propaganda back when in US you guys still had it as a 'controversial topic' and a matter of agreeing to disagree. Ohh the irony.
For the Japanese - see the link posted by Astronuc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
Did the concerns for friends, kids, etc prevent this? No.
I also know that USA did almost 2 times the nuclear tests that SU did, and awful lot of them in Nevada desert. Did the concerns for children, etc prevent it? No.

I know that the bear will protect the clubs. The female bear. The male bear may eat them.

edit: As of why I do not trust you - you tend to get numbers wrong in the favour of whatever argument you're pushing for. I know it is extremely common.

 

[Dmytry]

Also, on topic of good will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...the_United_States#Human_radiation_experiments
Not communist propaganda, all sourced, non-controversial, good fraction of it even admitted (very reluctantly). That's where data on the effects of radiation and 'safe' limits for infants was obtained from. According to you it is delusional to assume that human nature did not radically change in last 50 or 40 years - but for me it is merely a null hypothesis, and generic arguments, well, they would of applied the same 50 years ago. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[NUCENG]

You were speaking of my distrust.

Point is - no reason to trust random people to be better than oneself.

Well, you are appealing to trust a lot. When i make the point that reviews may not be effective, you appeal to trust.

edit: As of why I do not trust you - you tend to get numbers wrong in the favour of whatever argument you're pushing for. I know it is extremely common.

Ok I get it You don't trust people. Nothing I have said has changed that. You are happy with your suspicions, distrust, and fears.

Indeed. And a very different situation. A design mistake, not lack of any tsunami protection.

Chernobyl was a design mistake? but Fukushima wasn't? Then what was it?


Actually the example I know to not have quitted smoking when pregnant is American. I was surprised, because in SU there was a strong anti-smoking propaganda back when in US you guys still had it as a 'controversial topic' and a matter of agreeing to disagree. Ohh the irony.
For the Japanese - see the link posted by Astronuc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
Did the concerns for friends, kids, etc prevent this? No.
I also know that USA did almost 2 times the nuclear tests that SU did, and awful lot of them in Nevada desert. Did the concerns for children, etc prevent it? No.

I know that the bear will protect the clubs. The female bear. The male bear may eat them.

I get the point you were trying to make. You use these unrelated issues to say that there are examples where other people and animals have done things that hurt their own children. Then you feel this justifies your distrust and fears.

I think I now understand why you are so reluctant to believe that people can be honest and motivated for good. Obviously, I can't fix your problem for you. I really believe you need professional help, not because you disagree with me, but because nobody should have to live with the kind of irrational distrust and fear of others you have admitted.

 

[NUCENG]

Also, on topic of good will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...the_United_States#Human_radiation_experiments
Not communist propaganda, all sourced, non-controversial, good fraction of it even admitted (very reluctantly). That's where data on the effects of radiation and 'safe' limits for infants was obtained from. According to you it is delusional to assume that human nature did not radically change in last 50 or 40 years - but for me it is merely a null hypothesis, and generic arguments, well, they would of applied the same 50 years ago. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

I won't even ask you to try to stay on topic. The title of that article is "Unethical Experimentation..." I will go further. These are crimes.

I am over 60. Has human nature changed over the last 40 or 50 years? Many things have changed. Most things have changed for the better, some not. I know I have changed over that time. I know that we have much more immediate information and less secrecy about events in all corners of the world. It took years to uncover some of the issues in that Wiki article. The mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was out in months. Now we hear complaints on this forum that we don't have instant access to instrument readings at Fukushima.

Bad things happen, and that is a fact. It is just one more excuse to hold tight to your fear. You have a choice when faced with these bad things. You can get back into bed, pull the covers over your head, hate the world, and surrender to fear, or stand up and fight for what you believe. If you need help, get it.

 

[Drakkith]

Wait. Are you saying I should trust nuclear industry more because I can't be sure even about myself? Where's the logic in that?
Suppose I was sure I myself would have shot that scientist, or bribed him, or something. Then I would trust you guys even less.

I don't really need or want other people to trust me to try to do the right thing. I'd rather they use reason instead of trust. Less temptation for me. edit: and less edge for the competitors who do not do the right thing.
I won't trust you guys to do the right thing, and I do not ask you to trust me to do the right thing.

So...you don't trust anyone because YOU wouldn't trust yourself in a similar situation? Understandable I suppose.

I'd rather they use reason instead of trust.

What does this even mean? You MUST trust people at some level. If your argument is that you can't trust anyone, then not even the most stringent safety measures would do any good as you wouldn't trust anyone to actually make those things correctly or follow those regulations.

I won't trust you guys to do the right thing, and I do not ask you to trust me to do the right thing.

Why? Do you not strive to do the right things to the best of your ability?

 

[AntonL]

The Mainichi Daily News asks and analysis http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20110425p2a00m0na006000c.html"

The excuses made by the organizations involved go to show that so-called nuclear power experts have no intention to self reflect or admit their shortcomings. It was this self-righteousness -- evidenced over the years in the industry's suppression of unfavorable warnings and criticisms, as well as in their imposition of the claim that the safety of nuclear energy was self evident -- that lay down the groundwork for the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant.

 

[Drakkith]

The Mainichi Daily News asks and analysis http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20110425p2a00m0na006000c.html"

While I don't doubt that there is at least some truth in that article, I have to ask if it is unfarily biased. We have no idea what questions were asked nor what the responses were. (Not from the article at least) I just hate to base anything off a simple web article that takes an "opinion based" stand.

Also, can someone do this for me? Give me the 5 top things that caused the incident OTHER than the quake/tsunami and flooding of the generators. I'm talking about mistakes made, bad decisions made, failed equipment, ETC that helped cause this.

 

[Dmytry]

I think I now understand why you are so reluctant to believe that people can be honest and motivated for good. Obviously, I can't fix your problem for you. I really believe you need professional help, not because you disagree with me, but because nobody should have to live with the kind of irrational distrust and fear of others you have admitted.

You know what, I know that people can be honest and motivated for good. Some people definitely are (you aren't one of them though, I think you've made it clear enough by the way you argue)
The problem is that people can be dishonest and motivated - not for good, and not for bad, but for something unrelated, such as self interest.

I've had enough with you really. Constant attempts to make insults. I ignore some and try not to respond in same style, but that is enough. Trying to portray me as paranoid, delusional, communism-wrecked, paranoid in need of professional help once again... I gave you far more benefit of the doubt than you deserve.
You know what. You can't even get numbers right, and I mean, not even in the ballpark, you're getting things order of magnitude wrong. You can't even think straight. Can I trust you to calculate things correctly because you have kids living near the nuclear power plant? LOL. I can't trust you to calculate anything. You'd just get numbers wrong as for the result to match some pre-conceived idea, and you'll not even know you're doing that. And you're not even the worst, you may be better than typical, you can sometimes give consideration to other people if they are obviously enough correct. Yet, if the plant is ever a threat to your kids - all you're going to do is to convince yourself that it is not.
Am I being paranoid or full of fear there? No not really. I am just aware of how people do this kind of thing.

 

[Dmytry]

So...you don't trust anyone because YOU wouldn't trust yourself in a similar situation? Understandable I suppose.

Well, I would like to think that I would do the right thing in the similar situation. But I know how easily people do the wrong/selfish thing - by convincing themselves that it is the right thing, not because they are inherently 'evil'.

What does this even mean? You MUST trust people at some level. If your argument is that you can't trust anyone, then not even the most stringent safety measures would do any good as you wouldn't trust anyone to actually make those things correctly or follow those regulations.

Well, it's not that I totally don't trust the people, it's that I don't trust people I do not know to act against self interest.
I do not think you trust them so much either.
Consider NUCENG. He had consistently gotten numbers wrong in his favour. Can I trust him to do the math? No I can't. Can i trust 100 or 1000 people like him? No I can't, because the error is systematic rather than random, it won't average out to zero.
Do I think he just sits, and thinks consciously, machiavelli style, "how can i mix up the numbers in my favour" - no, of course not! He may even honestly think he's trying to get numbers right.

Now he had been trying to portray me as paranoid, equating awareness of that sort of bias - and it's consequences - to some deep distrust and fear of everyone. Where did I ever admit fear of everyone? Distrust of everyone? Well i guess so, do you trust random person on the street to return the money they borrow? I don't, and probably you neither, but watch out, I am going to be quoted on this to show how I'm paranoid and delusional and full of distrust and fear.

Why? Do you not strive to do the right things to the best of your ability?

I may not see what is the 'right thing' or my idea of right thing may be incorrect. There is such thing as bias. For example, before this entire fukushima thing, I was rather pro nuclear, considering that most of energy in my house was supplied by nuclear for a while. That was bias and ignorance of the problems. Spent fuel pools on the top floor, etc, etc.
The plant here was better than most, I still think so, spent fuel not on top floor, gradual in-operation refuelling so no rush to refuel as fast as possible, no complete fresh core in spent fuel pool, etc. I was ignorant of situation at foreign plants though.

 

[Drakkith]

Dmytry, I never know what to think with your posts lol. One post seems extremely harsh and close minded, and the next is completely different. Or so that's what I'm getting from it. Perhaps it is just me though.

My only issue with you is that you "seem" to ignore any counter arguments to your own point of view. Perhaps it is simply the way your posts are constructed. For example, when I suggested that there could be other important reasons to build the generator building where it is you flat out denied it I believe. Then I suggested some reasons that you wouldn't build a helipad on top of the buildings at a plant. Again you shot down my reasons.

Now, I can't come up with an infinite amount of examples to throw around, so we'll have to make good with generalizations. Do you agree or disagree that there might be some very good reasons for doing things they way they were done? Perhaps those reasons weren't as good as they initially thought, but reasons nonetheless.

 

[Dmytry]

Chernobyl was a design mistake? but Fukushima wasn't? Then what was it?

I'd guess that it was gross negligence. We'll see after they have investigation and trial.

 

[Dmytry]

Dmytry, I never know what to think with your posts lol. One post seems extremely harsh and close minded, and the next is completely different. Or so that's what I'm getting from it. Perhaps it is just me though.

Maybe you just are reading something into any case whenever I am unclear.

My only issue with you is that you "seem" to ignore any counter arguments to your own point of view. Perhaps it is simply the way your posts are constructed. For example, when I suggested that there could be other important reasons to build the generator building where it is you flat out denied it I believe. Then I suggested some reasons that you wouldn't build a helipad on top of the buildings at a plant. Again you shot down my reasons.

Now, I can't come up with an infinite amount of examples to throw around, so we'll have to make good with generalizations. Do you agree or disagree that there might be some very good reasons for doing things they way they were done? Perhaps those reasons weren't as good as they initially thought, but reasons nonetheless.

I agree that there might be some very good reasons. But do you agree or disagree that there may be other reasons for doing things the way they were done - such as saving the money?
It's not about what it might be, it's about what is more probable. I am not their defence attorney, and this is not trial. If I'd make the guess about trial - I'd guess they'd be found guilty of gross negligence for locating the generators and electrical equipment in the basements that are not hardened.
I've been giving too much benefit of the doubt to nuclear energy. Then I see the typical process - look at boral example more closely - something fails in unexpected way, then there's a long worded study convincing oneself it is OK and not a problem. Read that Feynman's report on space shuttle. There was 1/3 erosion of the O-ring. Unexpected erosion. NASA had a study which concluded this is not a threat, and concluded there was a safety factor of 3.

edit: here, read this:
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html

In spite of these variations from case to case, officials behaved as if they understood it, giving apparently logical arguments to each other often depending on the "success" of previous flights. For example. in determining if flight 51-L was safe to fly in the face of ring erosion in flight 51-C, it was noted that the erosion depth was only one-third of the radius. It had been noted in an experiment cutting the ring that cutting it as deep as one radius was necessary before the ring failed. Instead of being very concerned that variations of poorly understood conditions might reasonably create a deeper erosion this time, it was asserted, there was "a safety factor of three." This is a strange use of the engineer's term ,"safety factor." If a bridge is built to withstand a certain load without the beams permanently deforming, cracking, or breaking, it may be designed for the materials used to actually stand up under three times the load. This "safety factor" is to allow for uncertain excesses of load, or unknown extra loads, or weaknesses in the material that might have unexpected flaws, etc. If now the expected load comes on to the new bridge and a crack appears in a beam, this is a failure of the design. There was no safety factor at all; even though the bridge did not actually collapse because the crack went only one-third of the way through the beam. The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred.

This very much applies to that NRC boral study as well.
I am sure that NASA officials deeply respect the astronauts and do not want to kill any astronauts. Yet, the self deception happens.

NUCENG for example wants to explain my position with paranoia and phobia and communism and god knows what else, and claims that he honestly believes so. Well he may honestly believe so, but it is kind of obvious that the reason he believes so is because he does not like my argument, and he just wants to read some BS into it to make it go away.
edit: quoting from the first page, my second post in this thread:

Ya that is good. If only it was as simple as matter of not being evil. I can trust people not to do things that are extremely obviously evil - but for everything else there is a problem of self deception. If it takes a chain of logic to know that some selfish action is evil - there's very few people, mostly close friends, whom i can trust to do that logic and not do the evil thing.

Hod did it get from that to accusations of paranoia, distrust, and fear, and suggestions i need mental help?! Frankly I think my position is totally reasonable. I don't think you, for example, trust people much more than I do.

edit: for example, those unethical human irradiation / radioactivity experiments. I think at least some(most probably) of those were done by patriots, out to protect the country, in the event of nuclear war. They had deceived themselves into believing that what they were doing was morally acceptable, and that they weren't killing anyone (perhaps with notion that their actions were risk-neutral or something for the victims). That is my stance, I've been making it abundantly clear in this thread. NUCENG does not like this idea, he wants to equate it with idea that everyone is innately evil, and claim I am paranoid, which I would have been if I had idea that everyone is innately evil. But in doing so he's just making an example of self deception / intentional illogic.

 

[AntonL]

Also, can someone do this for me? Give me the 5 top things that caused the incident OTHER than the quake/tsunami and flooding of the generators. I'm talking about mistakes made, bad decisions made, failed equipment, ETC that helped cause this.

I can only think of two managerial mistakes

Mistake 1: Was the tsunami assessment study's http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf"

It is assumed that the design tsunami, which is developed in this paper, should have a sufficient height that exceeds the historical tsunami heights. However, the verification of this requirement is not carried out for all Japanese coasts. In principle, the design tsunami should satisfy the following two points in order to confirm its adequacy.
1) At the target site, the height of the design tsunami should exceed all the calculated historical tsunami heights.
2) In the vicinity of the target site, the envelope of the scenario tsunami heights should exceed all the recorded historical tsunami heights (see Figure3-2). “The vicinity of the target site” should be appropriately set taking into account the following three points: the number of run-up heights by the dominant historical tsunami, the distribution of run-up heights by the dominant historical tsunami, and the similarities between submarine topography and coastal landform. Here, the historical tsunamis that have no recorded tsunami run-up heights in the vicinity of the target site can be excluded from consideration

[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/in4bqs.JPG
Do we know historical heights for the area? The Tepco document does not make any references to these!
yes we do: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/27/fukushima-tsunami-plan-japan_n_841222.html

But the authors went on to write that tsunami records before 1896 could be less reliable because of "misreading, misrecording and the low technology available for the measurement itself." The TEPCO employees and their colleagues concluded, "Records that appear unreliable should be excluded."

Mistake 2: By not admitting that NPP could be in danger of being hit by a tsunami using historical run ups, thus no extra precautions were taken and working out various scenarios and how to deal with them.

 

[Drakkith]

But do you agree or disagree that there may be other reasons for doing things the way they were done - such as saving the money?
It's not about what it might be, it's about what is more probable.

Of course I agree that things are the way they are because of saving money! From the most miniscule decision that has no effect on safety to monumental disregards in safety, these things DO happen. That is the nature of business. The key is to recognize when something is legitimately an accident and when it is negligence. Which things are which in the Fukushima incident? I have no idea. That WILL be looked into.

I've been giving too much benefit of the doubt to nuclear energy. Then I see the typical process - look at boral example more closely - something fails in unexpected way, then there's a long worded study convincing oneself it is OK and not a problem.

I looked at that study you linked and I didn't see anywhere where they said it was OK. They identified the problem, proposed solutions, and in the end it said that the situation was resolved. Since I don't know how, I can't say on that. What exactly did you have a problem with in that article?

Read that Feynman's report on space shuttle. There was 1/3 erosion of the O-ring. Unexpected erosion. NASA had a study which concluded this is not a threat, and concluded there was a safety factor of 3

Yes, that was a tragedy. One that did not have to happen. But in almost all cases, nothing bad HAS to happen. It's a simple fact of life that they do though.

NUCENG for example wants to explain my position with paranoia and phobia and communism and god knows what else, and claims that he honestly believes so. Well he may honestly believe so, but it is kind of obvious that the reason he believes so is because he does not like my argument, and he just wants to read some BS into it to make it go away.

Well, you do come off as quite untrusting of MANY people. If I were to sum up your position, I would say that you do not think the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the costs due to inadequate safety procedures and other related things. Is that about right?

 

[Dmytry]

Of course I agree that things are the way they are because of saving money! From the most miniscule decision that has no effect on safety to monumental disregards in safety, these things DO happen. That is the nature of business. The key is to recognize when something is legitimately an accident and when it is negligence. Which things are which in the Fukushima incident? I have no idea. That WILL be looked into.

Well, you can read about TEPCO's standards in the past. Covering up core shroud cracks lol, literally.

I looked at that study you linked and I didn't see anywhere where they said it was OK. They identified the problem, proposed solutions, and in the end it said that the situation was resolved. Since I don't know how, I can't say on that. What exactly did you have a problem with in that article?

The situation was resolved on paper. Pretty much the same way as o-ring erosion was 'resolved' by NASA before Challenger.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/196.html
Furthermore, the behaviour of boral in the event of loss of coolant was not ever addressed.

Yes, that was a tragedy. One that did not have to happen. But in almost all cases, nothing bad HAS to happen. It's a simple fact of life that they do though.

I am referring to it as example of this sort of fault. Feynman explains why it is wrong much better than I can.

Well, you do come off as quite untrusting of MANY people. If I were to sum up your position, I would say that you do not think the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the costs due to inadequate safety procedures and other related things. Is that about right?

Well, it would be more like - I am not sure benefits outweight the costs. And I strongly disagree with those who are absolutely sure that benefits outweight the costs.
The problem with natural disasters is... that is plant failure when you are least ready to handle it. That's simultaneous plant failure. It is OK (bad but doesn't kill a lot of people) when you make 25..30% of electrical power with nuclear. It is not OK when you are approaching 80%. Simultaneous failures are very bad.

 

[Drakkith]

Well, you can read about TEPCO's standards in the past. Covering up core shroud cracks lol, literally.

Bleh. Thats no good.

The situation was resolved on paper. Pretty much the same way as o-ring erosion was 'resolved' by NASA before Challenger.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/196.html
Furthermore, the behaviour of boral in the event of loss of coolant was not ever addressed.

I am referring to it as example of this sort of fault. Feynman explains why it is wrong much better than I can.

Yes, I've read that already. Again, I don't see anywhere saying HOW it was resolved, so how can we talk about it if we don't know. I'm not getting from the article that they just said it was good and continued on, so if that is what they did then that's not a good thing.

Well, it would be more like - I am not sure benefits outweight the costs. And I strongly disagree with those who are absolutely sure that benefits outweight the costs.
The problem with natural disasters is... that is plant failure when you are least ready to handle it. That's simultaneous plant failure. It is OK when you make 25..30% of electrical power with nuclear. It is not ok when you are approaching 80%. Simultaneous failures are very bad.

But WHY do you disagree? What basis does your position come from? Other than your mistrust of course. Everything I have ever read points to FAR more injuries and deaths from every other form of power production we currently have. Do you disagree with that? Or are you saying that the POTENTIAL dangers outweigh the benefits? For me personally, if the data shows that nuclear power has caused few injuries and deaths, AND harmed the environment less, then why wouldn't I want us to use it?

Of course, all that is with the understanding that it CONTINUES to cause the least amount of harm overall.

 

[Dmytry]

Bleh. Thats no good.
Yes, I've read that already. Again, I don't see anywhere saying HOW it was resolved, so how can we talk about it if we don't know. I'm not getting from the article that they just said it was good and continued on, so if that is what they did then that's not a good thing.

All they recommended was empirical study, then business as usual. That is BS. The study won't cover the variety of conditions. You can't do things like that with this sort of study. The standard is obviously very low. When a beam in bridge cracks 1/3 of the way, you do not do empirical studies of how good or bad is that. You call it a failure.

But WHY do you disagree? What basis does your position come from? Other than your mistrust of course. Everything I have ever read points to FAR more injuries and deaths from every other form of power production we currently have. Do you disagree with that? Or are you saying that the POTENTIAL dangers outweigh the benefits?

The danger does not scale linearly with the number of plants. If we are to switch to nuclear - we should think of the potential danger when there is a lot more nuclear power plants, and when a disaster would strike several at once, and the response would be overwhelmed.

For me personally, if the data shows that nuclear power has caused few injuries and deaths, AND harmed the environment less, then why wouldn't I want us to use it?

Of course, all that is with the understanding that it CONTINUES to cause the least amount of harm overall.

But if share of nuclear in energy mix is to be increased, would it continue to cause least amount of harm?

The problem with nuclear is that deaths from it are grouped into the low probability events. I think LNT is true, which means there's noticeable death toll, and puts nuclear not so far better than other methods of energy production. Instead, I think nuclear is somewhat better. Which is, well, conservative opinion, is it not?

You instead interpret anything unknown in favour of nuclear power. That is not a good approach for safety.

 

[Drakkith]

All they recommended was empirical study, then business as usual. That is BS. The study won't cover the variety of conditions. You can't do things like that with this sort of study. The standard is obviously very low. When a beam in bridge cracks 1/3 of the way, you do not do empirical studies of how good or bad is that. You call it a failure.

Are you sure you aren't looking too deep into the study? That particular study was specifically to look at one aspect. I don't reach the same conclusions you reach. They described multiple situations where the borel could be damaged and proposed several solutions. How is that business as usual?

The danger does not scale linearly with the number of plants. If we are to switch to nuclear - we should think of the potential danger when there is a lot more nuclear power plants, and when a disaster would strike several at once, and the response would be overwhelmed.

But if share of nuclear in energy mix is to be increased, would it continue to cause least amount of harm.

Sure, I agree that the possibility of a more widespread incident would increase with more plants. I cannot say whether it would continue to be the least if we went to more plants.

The problem with nuclear is that deaths from it are grouped into the low probability events. I think LNT is true, which means there's noticeable death toll, and puts nuclear not so far ahead of other methods of energy production.

What is LNT?

 

[Dmytry]

Are you sure you aren't looking too deep into the study? That particular study was specifically to look at one aspect. I don't reach the same conclusions you reach. They described multiple situations where the borel could be damaged and proposed several solutions. How is that business as usual?

not quite.
"The proposed solution for this generic issue is in two steps. The first step would be to test samples of Boral under conditions duplicating the environmental conditions that would be experienced in these MPC units. This experiment can be done quite readily, and at a modest cost. If there is no evidence for crumbling or relocation of the B4C-Al composite material, the issue would be considered resolved.

However, if the experimental evidence indicates that relocation of the B4C-Al composite material is credible, the second step would be to ensure that these MPC units either are repaired under dry conditions, or that the water used in submerged operations contain a soluble neutron absorber such as boric acid (or some other means be used for reactivity control).

Alternatively, it is the staff's understanding that the manufacturer has been conducting research to find ways to improve the performance of Boral. This also could resolve the issue."
That is really not the right way to do it. Easy to miss something. The water in SFP is not clean, it has hydrogen peroxide or other compounds added to kill bacteria, for example, or something else, and practice varies between plants.
There are other issues that weren't addressed, for example loss of coolant in the spent fuel pool, and other issues in the spent fuel pool.
The bottom line is - they were supplied material developed by some third party company ceradine
http://www.ceradyne.com/products/nuclear/boral-composite.aspx
and this material did not perform to specification - unexpected swelling etc. They're doing studies to try and show that it is still safe, well because it'd be expensive to replace. That's not a good way to do safety.

It really is just crazy from the engineering standpoint. Aluminium is a very reactive metal. This is porous compressed aluminium powder we are speaking of. If there is a good reason for using aluminium - and it is the best choice - that won't make aluminium less reactive or have higher melting point or be less of a fire hazard. Pressed mix of aluminium powder and boron carbide, in the spent fuel pool, that is scary from the chemical/engineering standpoint. Aluminium burns with a LOT of compounds (such as oxides of most metals). And it burns very hot.

Sure, I agree that the possibility of a more widespread incident would increase with more plants. I cannot say whether it would continue to be the least if we went to more plants. What is LNT?

Linear no threshold effect of carcinogens. Most easily illustrated on asbestos. Asbestos fibres mechanically slice DNA, causing additional mutations. When someone gets cancer due to asbestos, it is in principle traceable to single fibre. There is existing high lifetime cancer rate of 40% , caused by existing mutation load (mostly not radioactivity); small changes in the mutation load are expected to result in linear changes in cancer rate (approximating a small piece of response curve with line).

 

[Drakkith]

not quite.
That is really not the right way to do it. Easy to miss something. The water in SFP is not clean, it has hydrogen peroxide or other compounds added to kill bacteria, for example, or something else, and practice varies between plants.
There are other issues that weren't addressed, for example loss of coolant in the spent fuel pool, and other issues in the spent fuel pool.
The bottom line is - they were supplied material developed by some third party company ceradine
http://www.ceradyne.com/products/nuclear/boral-composite.aspx
and this material did not perform to specification - unexpected swelling etc. They're doing studies to try and show that it is still safe, well because it'd be expensive to replace. That's not a good way to do safety.

I don't know why you think this is the case. A problem was identified, a study was initiated, and those are the results of that study. The whole point is to see if there will be a problem at all, and it turned out that yes there was. If the problem was so negligible that it wouldn't cause a problem, then there wouldn't be a need to replace the materiel. That is exactly how you do safety. I've never known another way to do it. You don't have an issue brought up and safety measure implemented without knowing what problems are going to be caused by this. One of the biggest reasons is that you wouldn't know what safety measures to implement in the first place if you didn't do the study. So I don't know why you have an issue here.

It really is just crazy from the engineering standpoint. Aluminium is a very reactive metal. This is porous compressed aluminium powder we are speaking of. If there is a good reason for using aluminium - and it is the best choice - that won't make aluminium less reactive or have higher melting point or be less of a fire hazard. Pressed mix of aluminium powder and boron carbide, in the spent fuel pool, that is scary from the chemical/engineering standpoint. Aluminium burns with a LOT of compounds (such as oxides of most metals). And it burns very hot.

If there aren't any compounds that react with the aluminum inside the pool or the container, why would that be a problem? Is there any materiel that you can think of that might be introduced in sufficient quantities to produce any significant hazard? Whether through routine use or in accidents.

Linear no threshold effect of carcinogens. Most easily illustrated on asbestos. Asbestos fibres mechanically slice DNA, causing additional mutations. When someone gets cancer due to asbestos, it is in principle traceable to single fibre. There is existing high lifetime cancer rate of 40% , caused by existing mutation load (mostly not radioactivity); small changes in the mutation load are expected to result in linear changes in cancer rate (approximating a small piece of response curve with line).

I don't even know what this says in relation to your previous post. You said if LNT is correct then the rates of death would be higher. How does this paragraph say anything about that?

 

[Astronuc]

The bottom line is - they were supplied material developed by some third party company ceradine
http://www.ceradyne.com/products/nuclear/boral-composite.aspx
and this material did not perform to specification - unexpected swelling etc. They're doing studies to try and show that it is still safe, well because it'd be expensive to replace. That's not a good way to do safety.

It really is just crazy from the engineering standpoint. Aluminium is a very reactive metal. This is porous compressed aluminium powder we are speaking of. If there is a good reason for using aluminium - and it is the best choice - that won't make aluminium less reactive or have higher melting point or be less of a fire hazard. Pressed mix of aluminium powder and boron carbide, in the spent fuel pool, that is scary from the chemical/engineering standpoint. Aluminium burns with a LOT of compounds (such as oxides of most metals). And it burns very hot.

BORAL® is a precision hot-rolled composite plate material consisting of a core of mixed aluminum and boron carbide particles with an 1100 Series aluminum cladding on both external surfaces. The cladding forms a solid and effective barrier against the environment. BORAL® is produced over a wide range of surface dimensions, areal densities and thicknesses. BORAL® is manufactured in flat sheets that can be cut, punched, bored and formed into shapes. The physical properties of BORAL® allow it to be designed into fabricated structures as necessary.

from http://www.ceradyne.com/products/neutron/boral.aspx

Aluminum sheet/plate (not powder) forms a protective oxide which prevents it from catching or reacting strongly with other metals, or metal oxide. The form is very important. One may be thinking of the thermite reaction in which Al powder is blended with iron and chromium oxides (and oxides of other metals). I believe ignition requires relatively high temperature.

 

[Dmytry]

from http://www.ceradyne.com/products/neutron/boral.aspx

Aluminum sheet/plate (not powder) forms a protective oxide which prevents it from catching or reacting strongly with other metals, or metal oxide.

Well, the whole thing is not watertight, apparently... water gets in, and it experiences swelling due to hydrogen formation, i.e. the aluminium plates detach, and it even caused 'mechanical interference' aka the stuff got so bloated things were getting stuck. Definitely not a good thing, that would lead to all sorts of strange on-site solutions to get things unstuck. Their solution? Cut the corners, make it even less watertight, so that hydrogen escapes. If it is acceptable to use aluminium oxide there - the end result of letting this thing sit in water - why not use aluminium oxide right away?

The form is very important. One may be thinking of the thermite reaction in which Al powder is blended with iron and chromium oxides (and oxides of other metals). I believe ignition requires relatively high temperature.

Not for amounts that can warm themselves up by initially slow oxidation. It can burn in air too. I actually used to burn crumpled aluminium foil with tiny oxyhydrogen torch (to ignite it).
I'm not saying that it will burn as well as thermite. But in the event of partial fuel fire, there will be metal oxides present, and there will be aluminium powder, and it is very reactive. Molten aluminium as well. I'd rather the neutron absorber was not the first thing to fail, and I'd rather it be something inert with a high melting point. If there is a serious leak in the spent fuel pool, you'll run out of borated water eventually.

 

[Dmytry]

I don't even know what this says in relation to your previous post. You said if LNT is correct then the rates of death would be higher. How does this paragraph say anything about that?

You asked what is LNT. "Linear No Threshold" model of response to carcinogens. Radioactive materials are carcinogens. The free radicals produced in cell due to irradiation are carcinogens. The LNT is how you calculate deaths due to extra cancer from radiation exposure. It's how you get numbers of tens thousands deaths due to Chernobyl. The radiation is mysterious and complicated, so I use asbestos as example of other carcinogen. Radiation is believed to be similar. It is about particle tracks through cells, and it is believed that extra cancer rate is linearly proportional to irradiation for small doses.

 

[Drakkith]

What temperature will waste in these containers reach if cooling is lost near the start of their storage? Any idea?

 

[Drakkith]

You asked what is LNT. "Linear No Threshold" model of response to carcinogens. Radioactive materials are carcinogens. The free radicals produced in cell due to irradiation are carcinogens.

Ah, well that makes sense. Your other post didn't. (What abestos had to do with it I had no idea till now)

So you think that minor amounts of radiation cause further mutations that results in an increase in cancer greater than what is measured and associated with radiation now?

 

[Dmytry]

What temperature will waste in these containers reach if cooling is lost near the start of their storage? Any idea?

Well, I am at the moment concerned about boral in SFP , where the cooling was lost and the thing heated enough to produce a lot of hydrogen for the hydrogen explosion (according to TEPCO), which is above the melting point of aluminium. Plus the boral plates may have swelling due to hydrogen - heating them may result in them bursting.

 

[Dmytry]

Ah, well that makes sense. Your other post didn't. (What abestos had to do with it I had no idea till now)

Well, it is kind of similar. The carcinogen that is 'rare' in the organism. Just as are particle track through cell nucleus. The principle is that there is no safe dose of asbestos because the minimum dose for a cell is 1 fibre and that is not safe. Same for radiation - the minimum dose is single particle track through cell nucleus (and then it is probabilistic depending to how close to DNA did it strike). For a cell, a single track can be a big dose. The point is that radiation doesn't dilute to safe levels.

So you think that minor amounts of radiation cause further mutations that results in an increase in cancer greater than what is measured and associated with radiation now?

No, I believe in LNT as it is assumed now 'for safety purposes', except I think it is not a mere precaution, but actually is a best theoretical model we got so far. It gives big numbers of deaths for very tiny exposures of large number of people. Each of those deaths can not be proved to be caused by radiation.
The numbers of deaths due to nuclear energy which are far below coal exclude the calculations based on LNT.

 

[Drakkith]

Well, I am at the moment concerned about boral in SFP , where the cooling was lost and the thing heated enough to produce a lot of hydrogen for the hydrogen explosion (according to TEPCO), which is above the melting point of aluminium. Plus the boral plates may have swelling due to hydrogen - heating them may result in them bursting.

Dmytry you are worried about everything. If it COULD go wrong you are worried about it.

 

[Drakkith]

Well, it is kind of similar. The carcinogen that is 'rare' in the organism. Just as are particle track through cell nucleus. The principle is that there is no safe dose of asbestos because the minimum dose for a cell is 1 fibre and that is not safe. Same for radiation - the minimum dose is single particle track through cell nucleus (and then it is probabilistic depending to how close to DNA did it strike). For a cell, a single track can be a big dose. The point is that radiation doesn't dilute to safe levels.

No, I believe in LNT as it is assumed now 'for safety purposes', except I think it is not a mere precaution, but actually is a best theoretical model we got so far. It gives big numbers of deaths for very tiny exposures of large number of people. Each of those deaths can not be proved to be caused by radiation.
The numbers of deaths due to nuclear energy which are far below coal exclude the calculations based on LNT.

Umm, ok. I can't say anything about this as it is all based on your opinion.

 

[Dmytry]

Dmytry you are worried about everything. If it COULD go wrong you are worried about it.

Well that's the attitude I'd want safety experts to have, except even more so. If we only worry about problems that are proven to emerge for sure, well, that'll be extremely unsafe. I'd rather safety was based on murphy's law rather than on optimism.

More on topic of LNT... the point is, the death toll of coal is very visible. The death toll of nuclear is hidden - it is in the rare accidents, and even then, it is a small percentage of a large group of people dying. It is very easy to understate it. You can read more on the topic. Read what LNT is, read about single cell studies, form your opinion.

 

[NUCENG]

While I don't doubt that there is at least some truth in that article, I have to ask if it is unfarily biased. We have no idea what questions were asked nor what the responses were. (Not from the article at least) I just hate to base anything off a simple web article that takes an "opinion based" stand.

Also, can someone do this for me? Give me the 5 top things that caused the incident OTHER than the quake/tsunami and flooding of the generators. I'm talking about mistakes made, bad decisions made, failed equipment, ETC that helped cause this.

So far:
1. Inadequate siting evaluation for the design basis earthquake and tsunami.
2. Failure to protect Essential AC switchgear and EDGGs from external flooding event
3. Failure to use operating experiience from US plants who identintified danger of Generators and switchgear in turbine building basement from internal and external flooding.
4. Failure to consider additional protection measures after larger wxrwenal design basis threat from earthquake/tsunami was identified.
5. Procedures or approval proceesses which allegedly delayed containment venting until containment exceeded design pressure by factor of 2.


Other causes/issues (no particular order):
Slow and piecemeal implementation of evacuation orders and shelter in place orders.
Inadequate dosimetry/protective clothing for emergency response crews.
Unit 3 failure to restart RCIC (exact cause unknown) but may have accelerated core uncovery at unit 3.
(For Dmytry) Lack of prepositioned supplemental cooling equipment, and transport and procedures to use it.
Inadequate equipment/training/procedures/exercises for identification of radioisotopes in post-accident samples.
Communication lapses or weaknesses leading to misinformation, over-optimistic releases.
Possible negligence to be determined.

As investigation and additional information is revealed the llist will change. An off the wall guess is that there may eventually be thousands of lessons-learned, contributing causes, equipment failure events, human errors, perhaps even crimes.

 

[Dmytry]

So far:
1. Inadequate siting evaluation for the design basis earthquake and tsunami.
2. Failure to protect Essential AC switchgear and EDGGs from external flooding event
3. Failure to use operating experiience from US plants who identintified danger of Generators and switchgear in turbine building basement from internal and external flooding.
4. Failure to consider additional protection measures after larger wxrwenal design basis threat from earthquake/tsunami was identified.
5. Procedures or approval proceesses which allegedly delayed containment venting until containment exceeded design pressure by factor of 2.Other causes/issues (no particular order):
Slow and piecemeal implementation of evacuation orders and shelter in place orders.
Inadequate dosimetry/protective clothing for emergency response crews.
Unit 3 failure to restart RCIC (exact cause unknown) but may have accelerated core uncovery at unit 3.
(For Dmytry) Lack of prepositioned supplemental cooling equipment, and transport and procedures to use it.
Inadequate equipment/training/procedures/exercises for identification of radioisotopes in post-accident samples.
Communication lapses or weaknesses leading to misinformation, over-optimistic releases.
Possible negligence to be determined.

As investigation and additional information is revealed the llist will change. An off the wall guess is that there may eventually be thousands of lessons-learned, contributing causes, equipment failure events, human errors, perhaps even crimes.

Well yea, that post i agree with.
Other thing to add... some failure of the reviewing process that is there to ensure lack of those many failures, as well as the failure to recognize the failure of reviewing process, et cetera. Possibly over optimistic expectations about reviewing, not enough critical thinking along the lines of "how do we know it is safe?", possibly too much trust that people would do the right thing (despite numerous historical examples to the contrary).

edit: that's my software experience. When you find bugs in the code that supposedly have been reviewed and tested (to the point of those bugs not being expected), in addition to fixing those bugs, the review/testing process itself has to be reviewed, as well as you need to reconsider why you overestimated efficacy of the review&testing process, and beware that may apply to the other divisions of the company.

 

[AntonL]

So far:
1. Inadequate siting evaluation for the design basis earthquake and tsunami.
2. Failure to protect Essential AC switchgear and EDGGs from external flooding event

these you cannot attribute to Tepco - the design was done in the Ebasco a USA company.

 

[Astronuc]

these you cannot attribute to Tepco - the design was done in the Ebasco a USA company.

Ultimately, it is the licensee's responsibility to ensure that the design and operation of a nuclear plant meet certain minimum safety and quality standards. At least, that is the situation in the US as specified by 10 CFR, and supporting law and regulation.

It was and has been TEPCO's duty and responsibility to ensure the FK I plant design was and is safe, and is operated safely. If EBASCO performed the tsunami analysis and designed the seawall, then they do bear some responsibility for the results. That does not remove responsibility from TEPCO.

An interesting and relevant article in the NY Times - Culture of Complicity Tied to Stricken Nuclear Plant
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html

 

[NUCENG]

these you cannot attribute to Tepco - the design was done in the Ebasco a USA company.

Didn't attribute it to TEPCO alone. But they bought into the design and built it. And regulators approved the siting. The OP asked for causes, not blame.

 

[gmax137]

In the US, the utility submits documents called PSAR and then FSAR which are reviewed by the regulator. These SARs form the basis for the issue of the construction permit and operating license for the plant. The thoughts and approaches that went into the seismic design and tsunami protection would be summarized in the SAR. These SARs are public documents (though they are harder to get since 9/11); if you have questions about the tsunami design for a US plant, you should be able to read about it in the plant's SARs.

Is the same true for the Japanese units? Do they have SARs or similar documents? Are they available anywhere on the internet? I'd really like to read the PSAR/FSAR discussion of flooding by tsunami for the daiichi units.

 

[NUCENG]

Well that's the attitude I'd want safety experts to have, except even more so. If we only worry about problems that are proven to emerge for sure, well, that'll be extremely unsafe. I'd rather safety was based on murphy's law rather than on optimism.

More on topic of LNT... the point is, the death toll of coal is very visible. The death toll of nuclear is hidden - it is in the rare accidents, and even then, it is a small percentage of a large group of people dying. It is very easy to understate it. You can read more on the topic. Read what LNT is, read about single cell studies, form your opinion.

Based on your previous posts, Dmytry, just where are you going to find safety experts that are better than the ones you already don't trust? Do we need to start mass production of Dmytry clones to be sure they have that attitude? How are you going to be sure they don't get corrupted like you believe all of us are?

 

[AntonL]

It was and has been TEPCO's duty and responsibility to ensure the FK I plant design was and is safe, and is operated safely. If EBASCO performed the tsunami analysis and designed the seawall, then they do bear some responsibility for the results. That does not remove responsibility from TEPCO.

You are 100% correct that the responsibility is with the customer who specify and not with the contractor. Do we know who the consultants were? Also, in the 1960 Japan was glad that it could buy nuclear know how and would not have questioned GE or EBASCO designs. I still believe that no tsunami analysis was done in 1960, and the break water at O.P+5.6m one would also need in areas that have no tsunamis. As a comparison the break water for Dubai's Palm Island has a crest height of 4.25 metres above mean sea level which translates to around 5m above low tide or O.P.+5m In the shallow Persian gulf there are no tsunamis just wind swept waves.

An interesting and relevant article in the NY Times - Culture of Complicity Tied to Stricken Nuclear Plant
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html

Concerning Asian Culture this 1998 classical http://www.flight.org/blog/download/airline-safety/korean_airlines_safety_audit_report.pdf" is an eye opener and should be compulsory reading for safety officer training.

 

[Dmytry]

Based on your previous posts, Dmytry, just where are you going to find safety experts that are better than the ones you already don't trust? Do we need to start mass production of Dmytry clones to be sure they have that attitude? How are you going to be sure they don't get corrupted like you believe all of us are?

Can also clone Murphy, it's the Murphy's law after all. Or not even clone anyone. Probably all you need is not to select for optimism.
But that's extras... first of all, need not to be getting the numbers and/or math wrong to confirm preconceptions. The greater problem is when there is an issue but everyone involved goes into denial and can't even calculate anything.

 

[AntonL]

And would this have made any difference? http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110426005409.htm

TEPCO boss wanted use of SDF plane / Minister nixed March 11 plan to rush to HQ
The Yomiuri Shimbun

Tokyo Electric Power Co. President Masataka Shimizu tried to fly to Tokyo from Aichi Prefecture on an Air Self-Defense Force airplane on March 11 after the massive earthquake that struck that day, but his permission to use the aircraft was revoked shortly after it took off, it has been learned.

About 20 minutes after takeoff, the ASDF C-130 Hercules transport plane carrying Shimizu was ordered by Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa to change course and return to Komaki Air Base in the prefecture.
...

Upon being informed of the disaster, Shimizu went from Nara to Nagoya by train in a bid to reach Tokyo, the sources said.

He had hoped to fly to Tokyo in a helicopter owned by a TEPCO affiliate, but was forced to abandon the idea because the Civil Aviation Law forbids private-owned helicopters flying after 7 p.m.

With all land routes in chaos, the TEPCO president inquired about using an SDF plane to get to Tokyo, the sources said.

The defense minister's intervention meant Shimizu did not arrive in Tokyo until about 10 a.m on March 12.

(Apr. 27, 2011)

 

[NUCENG]

On the topic of BORAL

GSI-196
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/196.html

IN 2009-26
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0924/ML092440545.pdf

Nuclear Engineering Handbook: Metamik has replaced Boral
http://books.google.com/books?id=EMy2OyUrqbUC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=boral+nuclear&source=bl&ots=Scpc8NkWG2&sig=hDk0PvxRCj9YjtRdpaFp0988eiM&hl=en&ei=Hka4TefADaXX0QGg4fn3Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=boral%20nuclear&f=false

EPRI TR 100841 BORAL Behavior Under Simulated Cask Vacuum Drying Conditiions.

Fuel Pool Clipping corners prevents swelling due to internal hydrogen gas that leads to blistering/swelling, No loss of neutron absorption has been found.

NRR action plan
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1015/ML101520463.pdf
BORAL Aging is a topic in License Renewal Reviews and requires plants to have a condition monitoring program.

Summary:

US Fuel Pool Issues requiring re-racking stemmed from failure of DOE to begin accepting spent fuel for geological storage in accordance with US law.

Dry cask storage at reactor sites is moving spent fuel out of the fuel pools.

BORAL Issue is public knowledge, no cover-up. NRC has issued guidance for monitoring condition of BORAL and closed the Generic Safety Issue. NRR is still working on additional technical reviews and will issue NUREG/CR this year.

Replacement materials for BORAL are available and being developed.

BORAL manufacturing processes have been modified to reduce porosity.

Sampling of BORAL for porosity is done for quality control.

Monitoring programs for BORAL aging

Cask applications may require replacement of BORAL after first wet dry cycle.

And yes, Contribution of BORAL to event at Fukushima is unknown and to be investigated..

Challenge: Industry, Vendors and Regulators have identified a problem, evaluated its significance, and are working to correct the problem. Why would they be doing that if safety wasn’t a priority. They could save a lot of money by covering up and ignoring the problem.

Okay now what else should be done?

 

[Dmytry]

Well I don't think public would complain about such stuff until something blows.

It's not exactly unpredictable that if you have compressed aluminium powder, not watertight, it's long term (or even short term) stability would be highly questionable. It is great that the issue is being worked on. Great to see that the issue was not swept under carpet. But it remains WTF use the highly reactive low melting point metal when long term stability is required? Yes, aluminium is stable due to formation of oxide - when it is not powder. And non-powdered aluminium can be damaged if there's hydroxide ions in the liquid.

"The degradation mechanisms and deformation rates of any of the neutron-absorbing materials
in the SFP are not well understood. Therefore, for licensees that credit the use of a
neutron-absorbing material to maintain subcriticality in their SFP, knowing the condition of the
neutron-absorbing material in the SFP and monitoring the SFP for any indications that
degradation of the material may be occurring can prevent noncompliance with SFP criticality
requirements.
"
You can't say i am having some sort of hindsight thing about it. Someone mentioned boral somewhere a while back, i researched the issue, it just doesn't seem to make sense to use compressed aluminium powder, then I looked - indeed there are issues, big surprise. Great to see that issues weren't swept under carpet, would've preferred though some better foresight, e.g. higher melting point neutron absorber would be better in case of loss of coolant at spent fuel pool. I couldn't find a lot about loss of coolant in spent fuel pool. I don't even know for sure if Fukushima is using boral, I hope it is something else, but when not knowing i'd rather expect worst. The plant is rather old.

 

[NUCENG]

Well I don't think public would complain about such stuff until something blows.

It's not exactly unpredictable that if you have compressed aluminium powder, not watertight, it's long term (or even short term) stability would be highly questionable. It is great that the issue is being worked on. Great to see that the issue was not swept under carpet. But it remains WTF use the highly reactive low melting point metal when long term stability is required? Yes, aluminium is stable due to formation of oxide - when it is not powder. And non-powdered aluminium can be damaged if there's hydroxide ions in the liquid.

"The degradation mechanisms and deformation rates of any of the neutron-absorbing materials
in the SFP are not well understood. Therefore, for licensees that credit the use of a
neutron-absorbing material to maintain subcriticality in their SFP, knowing the condition of the
neutron-absorbing material in the SFP and monitoring the SFP for any indications that
degradation of the material may be occurring can prevent noncompliance with SFP criticality
requirements.
"
You can't say i am having some sort of hindsight thing about it. Someone mentioned boral somewhere a while back, i researched the issue, it just doesn't seem to make sense to use compressed aluminium powder, then I looked - indeed there are issues, big surprise. Great to see that issues weren't swept under carpet, would've preferred though some better foresight, e.g. higher melting point neutron absorber would be better in case of loss of coolant at spent fuel pool. I couldn't find a lot about loss of coolant in spent fuel pool. I don't even know for sure if Fukushima is using boral, I hope it is something else, but when not knowing i'd rather expect worst. The plant is rather old.

So if the work in progress to monitor and correct this issue proceeds, you have nothing to add, pending the release of the investigation results or more information from the NUREG/CR document being prepared. Okay on to your next issue.

 

[NUCENG]

And would this have made any difference? http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110426005409.htm

Hopefully not, I hope he still had his cell phone and that he wasn't trying to micromanage the operators at Fukushima ala Jimmy Carter and Desert 1. Has he ever been licensed on a nuclear plant or did he have to trust his people?

While he was enroute, should he have passed the baton to Dmytry? ;-}

 

[NUCENG]

Can also clone Murphy, it's the Murphy's law after all. Or not even clone anyone. Probably all you need is not to select for optimism.
But that's extras... first of all, need not to be getting the numbers and/or math wrong to confirm preconceptions. The greater problem is when there is an issue but everyone involved goes into denial and can't even calculate anything.

Give it a rest Dmytry, must I go back and pull every exagerated statement, unsubstantiated claim, deliberate twisting of other posts, and errors you have made on this forum? I owned up to my miscalculation (which didn't change my point). BTW, it wasn't you who detected that error -that would have taken a little effort to do something other than spout off.

I admitted I had not adequately researched the maximum tsunami ever recorded in Japan, assuming it came from the worlds biggest earthquake at Valdivia, Chile. (I an still interested in hearing an explanation of why they only designed for a 5.5 m tsunami if they really had evidence of a 30 m runup in historical times.)

Your insistance on perfection is laudable but unrealistic. Are you seriously saying that every word you have written here can be substantiated by facts? Have you ever admitted to mistakes? You actually accused me of deliberately understating those numbers, of knowing that I lied to make my point. Sorry Dmytry, where should I report for the firing squad. Let me know when you find somebody else who is perfect because I insist that should be the qualification of the squad.

Those who can, do. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, criticize.

 

[NUCENG]

Well yea, that post i agree with.
Other thing to add... some failure of the reviewing process that is there to ensure lack of those many failures, as well as the failure to recognize the failure of reviewing process, et cetera. Possibly over optimistic expectations about reviewing, not enough critical thinking along the lines of "how do we know it is safe?", possibly too much trust that people would do the right thing (despite numerous historical examples to the contrary).

edit: that's my software experience. When you find bugs in the code that supposedly have been reviewed and tested (to the point of those bugs not being expected), in addition to fixing those bugs, the review/testing process itself has to be reviewed, as well as you need to reconsider why you overestimated efficacy of the review&testing process, and beware that may apply to the other divisions of the company.

Exactly. Corrective action is more than shooting the programmer or software developer that made the eror or that didn't find it during testing or review. Corrective action has to looke for issues such as overwork, deficient specifications, inadequate training, environmental factors such as lighting anbd distractions and many more aspects. Believe it or not, we have also figured that out in the nuclear industry. And it doesn't stop with the company. Operating experience reports are issued so the same mistakes don't occur at another plant or even in other countries. Ever seen that in a software project? OR IS IT ALL HUSH HUSH AND PROPRIETARY?