Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

Click For Summary
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is facing significant challenges following the earthquake, with reports indicating that reactor pressure has reached dangerous levels, potentially 2.1 times capacity. TEPCO has lost control of pressure at a second unit, raising concerns about safety and management accountability. The reactor is currently off but continues to produce decay heat, necessitating cooling to prevent a meltdown. There are conflicting reports about an explosion, with indications that it may have originated from a buildup of hydrogen around the containment vessel. The situation remains serious, and TEPCO plans to flood the containment vessel with seawater as a cooling measure.
  • #6,181
http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/f2-np/f2land/index-j.html

I know it's about Daini, but it is sweet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #6,182
pdObq said:
Interesting. Looking forward to those new images.

Is the building leaning towards the sea-side? Because the pillars on the south side look pretty much intact below the service floor. I don't think the inner structure such as the reactor and sfp are resting on the outside pillars (that's at least what I would hope), so that it wouldn't really matter much if the outer hull of the building is leaning, unless it is going to collapse and stuff falls into the sfp. Or is the whole unit supposed to lean from ground up?

The SFP is somewhat dependent on the building framework. The building instability concerns cited to the media by staff at the plant were that the instability of the building framework is causing concerns about the stability of the SFP.

If you look at the elevation of reactor 1, the blueprint that is floating around.
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/reactorblueprint.jpg
You see that the SFP is tied into the outside of the containment concrete. It hangs sort of like a window box off of the containment structure. There is a very thin piece of concrete that ties the bottom of the SFP to the outer frame of the building. There is nothing supporting the SFP from below.

The technicians at the plant are citing the instabilities of the structure as a whole as causing worry about the SFP stability. From what I was told by a reliable source in the media is that this is a considerable worry, getting some sort of reinforcement under the SFP is a priority. This was before the building began leaning over.
 
  • #6,183
clancy688 said:
Chernobyl happened 25 years and we still don't really know yet why the whole reactor went KABOOM.

Some people don't know why, but these are the people who deny the possibility of a criticality accident; or people who believe the accounts of those who do deny that occurrence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident

Same story with Fukushima 3.
In my opinion.


BTW
Where did all the "hot" radioactive material around the site come from?
Obviously not from unit four.
 
  • #6,184
NancyNancy said:
The SFP is somewhat dependent on the building framework. The building instability concerns cited to the media by staff at the plant were that the instability of the building framework is causing concerns about the stability of the SFP.

If you look at the elevation of reactor 1, the blueprint that is floating around.
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/reactorblueprint.jpg
You see that the SFP is tied into the outside of the containment concrete. It hangs sort of like a window box off of the containment structure. There is a very thin piece of concrete that ties the bottom of the SFP to the outer frame of the building. There is nothing supporting the SFP from below.

The technicians at the plant are citing the instabilities of the structure as a whole as causing worry about the SFP stability. From what I was told by a reliable source in the media is that this is a considerable worry, getting some sort of reinforcement under the SFP is a priority. This was before the building began leaning over.
hmm but did it really begin leaning over?
 
  • #6,185
NancyNancy said:
If you look at the elevation of reactor 1, the blueprint that is floating around. http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/reactorblueprint.jpg
You see that the SFP is tied into the outside of the containment concrete. It hangs sort of like a window box off of the containment structure. There is a very thin piece of concrete that ties the bottom of the SFP to the outer frame of the building. There is nothing supporting the SFP from below.

The technicians at the plant are citing the instabilities of the structure as a whole as causing worry about the SFP stability. From what I was told by a reliable source in the media is that this is a considerable worry, getting some sort of reinforcement under the SFP is a priority. This was before the building began leaning over.

There is no doubt that it is a concern, which is why they intend to do something about it.

However, I am really not sure I agree with your description that the pool would not have anything supporting it from below. That could be the case at 4 now due to building damage, but under normal circumstances it looks like there are a variety of other parts of the structure that hold the pool in place, not just the outside wall. Personally I would not use reactor 1 sketch as a guide, but if I do then I see concrete walls below the pool.

As for unit 4 building leaning, I can appreciate that you can judge your sources and we cannot, but there is no way in the world I am going to believe you on this without more proof. There has now been a large volume of complete rubbish spoken on the internet about Fukushima, most of it based on exceedingly poor analysis of photos or videos, especially since the online feed went up. Barely a night now goes by without someone coming on here and claiming they have just seen new explosions, buildings leaning or having new damage, and as far as we can tell so far they are just plain wrong.

You say that your sources were right in the past, perhaps you could give an example of something else they told you about in advance that then came true? Do you have any other photos or anything that can help the case you are trying to make?
 
  • #6,186
NancyNancy said:
The SFP is somewhat dependent on the building framework. The building instability concerns cited to the media by staff at the plant were that the instability of the building framework is causing concerns about the stability of the SFP.

If you look at the elevation of reactor 1, the blueprint that is floating around.
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/reactorblueprint.jpg
You see that the SFP is tied into the outside of the containment concrete. It hangs sort of like a window box off of the containment structure. There is a very thin piece of concrete that ties the bottom of the SFP to the outer frame of the building. There is nothing supporting the SFP from below.

The technicians at the plant are citing the instabilities of the structure as a whole as causing worry about the SFP stability. From what I was told by a reliable source in the media is that this is a considerable worry, getting some sort of reinforcement under the SFP is a priority. This was before the building began leaning over.
The SFP does NOT "hang sort of like a window box off of the containment structure." The drawing shows a cross-section of the plant at one plane. The interpretation given (from someone who apparently does not have the appropriate technical background to make a sound judgement) is grossly incorrect. However, there is concern regarding the containment structures of Fukushima units following the earthquake (and subsequent explosions), because they haven't been able to inspect for damage, which could be cracks/leaks.
 
  • #6,187
Actually I've just been reviewing the live feed again and I would bet strongly that unit 4 is not leaning, there is simply no indication of leaning at all. If you insist on sticking to the idea that it is leaning, without further proof, please at least ask your 'sources' when this is supposed to have happened, what date did this supposed deterioration to unit 4 happen?
 
  • #6,188
pdObq said:
Interesting. Looking forward to those new images.

Is the building leaning towards the sea-side? Because the pillars on the south side look pretty much intact below the service floor. I don't think the inner structure such as the reactor and sfp are resting on the outside pillars (that's at least what I would hope), so that it wouldn't really matter much if the outer hull of the building is leaning, unless it is going to collapse and stuff falls into the sfp. Or is the whole unit supposed to lean from ground up?

I have a couple of new images on my website. One of the crane being moved and inserted into the side of the building at the work floor level. Not sure why. Move due to structural worries? Moved so work to shore up the SFP could begin? Needed to inject water directly in the pool?

Also some new images of the leaning reactor 4 along with vertical landmarks to try to figure out the leaning. I mentioned in another post that I received confirmation from the TBS tech crew that it is not an optical illusion of the camera and also from workers at the plant that 4 is leaning over. There is also a building on the seaside side of 4 that connects to the turbine building. This could be impacting the way and how much 4 leans over. There is considerable damage to the walls on the north and south so the other two walls have lost some of their ability to stay upright. The containment concrete is built before the building top but it is slightly offset so the weight of the containment structure weight could be causing some of the sinking and leaning. They have poured in tons of water, the soil around the building could be becoming unstable adding to the sinking. There were previous concerns about the groundwater levels making the NPP buoyant. There was also some concerns about the offset reactor design and tall skinny upper building in the context of the two older reactors at Hamaoka that are identical to the older units at FUKU. The tall skinny buildings along with the offset reactors were cited as increasing the lateral movement of the building. This article talks about the superiority in the design used at the newer units at Hamaoka. I am still trying to find the other article on their site that mentioned the lateral issues with the old units. I lost the link, will post if I find it again. http://www.chuden.co.jp/english/initiatives/eini_nuclearpower/enuc_earthquakemeasures/eear_reactorbuildings/index.html


So you have a reactor building that is floating to an extent, lots of water added to the situation, constant earthquakes and two confirmations that this isn't a camera trick.

Asahi Shimbun article about the floating buildings http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104010166.html

Manichi article about bedrock being 46 meters down http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110427p2g00m0dm091000c.html

Study confirming the NPP is on floating mudstone base not bedrock http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/9_vol3_733.pdf

info and photos of r4 sinking and the moved crane http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/r4sinking.html

images of yesterday's steam and smoke show http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/May8smoking.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6,189
Astronuc said:
The SFP does NOT "hang sort of like a window box off of the containment structure." The drawing shows a cross-section of the plant at one plane. The interpretation given (from someone who apparently does not have the appropriate technical background to make a sound judgement) is grossly incorrect. However, there is concern regarding the containment structures of Fukushima units following the earthquake (and subsequent explosions), because they haven't been able to inspect for damage, which could be cracks/leaks.

A number of different people who work in various capacities on a daily basis with blueprints and structural issues found it concerning. Of course there is information missing with only having these two elevation views. There appears to be limited reinforcement under the SFP and the people working at the plant are citing structural issues with the pool and the building.

I don't find taking personal swipes at people very useful to the conversation.
 
  • #6,190
clancy688 said:
Something very interesting I just discovered - apparently television images of the Unit 4 explosion / fire.
But it's hard to see anything...

I believe these images were taken from a helicopter on March 16th, the day after the explosion in unit 4. Several snippets from this helicopter overfly exists, on the net ,e.g.


Edit: I believe the shooting time for this footage is about 11 am.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6,191
Move due to structural worries?
Do you think that they insert the crane into the side of the building because the building is unstable and it its easier to get the crane into this hole without disturbing anything?

Take a 320 pixel wide picture of a several meters structure, upsample that 1280 pixel and draw 2 pixels wide "reference" ..

http://k.min.us/ileBnu.JPG

Edit by Borek: too wide image replaced by link

edit: ok pictures scaled down
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/jnvlFs.JPG
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/jle5bk.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6,192
Madderdoc: "From what I've read, boron is used up to a few thousand ppm in the cooling water."
Astronuc: "Enriched boron (B-10 > 0.5) is quite common in the nuclear industry. For a given amount of boric acid, it would be preferable to have more B-10 than the natural concentration would give."
rmattila: "It's mainly the matter of controlling pH. If natural boron is used, more boric acid is needed to get the same reactivity effect, and this makes the pH lower. Depending on the acceptable pH limits and the water chemistry used, this might require addition of base chemicals in order to keep the pH high enough for the core materials."

I think I got it:
Under normal conditions enriched boric acid H3BO3 probably is -even at its much higher price and limited availability- the boron compound of choice in a nuclear power plant: highest concentration B-10, lowest concentration of accompanying elements (only O and H) and high purity due to its multi-step synthesis. And indeed therefore less high-grade NaOH or other base is needed for pH-adjustment.
I assume the purity requirements of the cooling water are very stringent. If the water after refueling/maintenance has to be made boron-free again by ion-exchange, smaller quantities are advantageous, even if the materials are more expensive.

Dmytry: "You tell me. France and US flew them 95 and 5 tons of enriched boron 10 a few days in. Not sure how much enriched though. [...] ... but I also know that they've been flying it in on airplane for some reason. I don't know if that's because of perfectionism or because you can't dissolve enough natural boron in water to definitely prevent the criticality."
I remember that I was astonished when this news hit the press the first or second day of the disaster. But...for me at that time (with LOCA and reported water levels far below top of fuel), reactors 1-3 were written off and the state of emergency started.

rmatilla: "Regarding the units 1-4 at Fukushima, I don't think the disadvantageous water chemistry resulting from suboptimal pH would make the situation any worse than it already is, taking into account the use of seawater etc."
Indeed, this is not a normal, but an emergency situation.
But obviously TEPCO at that time acted as under normal conditions by replenishing their high-grade stocks, hoping to save their assets. IIRC they were very reluctant to use seawater even when they run out of normal water and it took them weeks to admit that they had to write there assets off.
 
  • #6,193
I think that they move crane to take video of SFP or/and inside building from new point.
 
  • #6,194
NUCENG said:
If there were enough radiation to make radiolysis a legitimate threat in a spent fuel pool with freshly discharged fuel, it would be a problem for every fuel pool during every refueling outage. That just doesn't happen. And the freshly discharged fuel in SFP4 was at least 4-5 months old.
"That just doesn't happen" under normal circumstance when the pool is cooled,
and H2 and O in solution quickly recombine, but
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/invwtS.JPG

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35318&d=1304876672" Light Water Reactor Hydrogen Manual by Allen L Camp

In https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3287847&postcount=6068" , using above paper I worked out that some 120 to 150kg of Hydrogen could have been developed in SFP-4


Meteorite?
Conspiracy believers would quickly prove that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program"
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6,195
Arnie Gunderson http://vimeo.com/23393101"

also discusses explosion reactor 3
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6,196
SteveElbows said:
Indeed.

As far as official info about this event, the wording was quite poor and tried to downplay things regarding unit 4, but anyway:

March 14th 04:08 Temperature of pool is 84 degrees C.
March 15th 06:14 It was confirmed that a part of wall in the operation area of Unit 4 was damaged
March 15th 09:38 Fire spotted at unit 4
March 15th 11:00 Fire no longer seen - presume it went out of its own accord

Yes, it is and was confusing. I got the impression that for whatever their reason, after the explosion, recurrent fires were at play in unit 4. A striking change of color and shape of some debris hanging out from a hole at 4th floor in the north wall could be the signature of a fire event in that area at some time between March 15th and March 16th.
20110315-16_unit4south_fire.jpg

<..>
Given the timing of unit 3 explosion, I do not have an alternative explanation for what happened at unit 4. It happened within within minutes of the explosive sound at suppression chamber of unit 2, but I don't see how those events could be related.

Independent events do happen all the time, concurrently, but I think it is worth a thought, if there could be some causal relationsship between events in unit 2 and unit 4, since there is this tight coincidence.Following those big pipes along the turbine buildings might be worth a shot. I can't think of anything else connecting the buildings, which might be able to pump up unit 4 with hydrogen from unit 2.

Given that the temperature of the pool was reported at 84C about 26 hours before the explosive event, I still blame the pool, even if we can't see any obvious damage to fuel (can there be significant damage that is not visible?)

Pass. I feel not, but that could be wrong. After seeing the sfp videos, the Tepco theory of a flush of water from the reactor cavity released by an explosion has still credence. However, what exploded, and from where did it come?
 
  • #6,197
Looking at the righthand photo posted by MadderDoc above you can see that the buckled upper wall panels are putting strain on the wall and columns below. If the upper portion of the wall were to collapse and pull down the support columns below perhaps this would put additional strain on the fuel storage pool supporting structure. Maybe this is what the concern with unit 4 stability is...
 
  • #6,198
NancyNancy said:
I don't find taking personal swipes at people very useful to the conversation.

Well I am afraid that's the risk you take when you post sloppy information as if it was fact. There is nothing wrong with a bit of speculation, but pretending that such things are certain is not good. I also fear that attempts to make your sources sound great will not count for very much here, it does not make up for poor quality evidence. The onus is on you to provide decent evidence, don't complain if the theory is not taken seriously without such evidence.

We have known for a good while that they worry about unit 4 building & the stability of the pool, this emerged back when TEPCO announced their roadmap to bring the site under control. But the press didnt really talk about it as soon as this plan was announced, it went almost unnoticed, until TEPCO themselves started making comments about having to take it easy with the pool spraying, because they were worried about the weight of the water. But then things got more confusing because as soon as they said that, they went on a multi-day marathon where a huge quantity of water was sprayed into number 4. Then they stopped, did not spray at all between april 28th and may 4th, and then sprayed a very large amount of 270t on the 5th, 180t on the 6th and 120t on the 7th. If the pool was hanging by a thread, or the building was starting to lean badly, if they were absolutely afraid that the pool may collapse at any moment, then I doubt they would have risked putting so much water in in one go.

So yes, its a concern, something horrible could happen, but there's no way this disaster requires sexing up by some people drawing dodgy lines on photos and acting like its conclusive proof of anything.
 
  • #6,199
I_P said:
Looking at the righthand photo posted by MadderDoc above you can see that the buckled upper wall panels are putting strain on the wall and columns below. If the upper portion of the wall were to collapse and pull down the support columns below perhaps this would put additional strain on the fuel storage pool supporting structure. Maybe this is what the concern with unit 4 stability is...

That photo is a wall that's on the opposite side of the building to the fuel pool.

Personally I don't know exactly what makes them afraid, except to say that in general the building is in poor condition. Perhaps they are worried by what they see when they look into the hole that is lower down on the south side of the building, or the lower holes on the east side,certainly I assume that there is much detail we cannot see from the few photos we have, and that's part of the reason I don't think we have learned very much from all these hours spent (over)studying photos.
 
  • #6,200
MadderDoc said:
Yes, it is and was confusing. I got the impression that for whatever their reason, after the explosion, recurrent fires were at play in unit 4. A striking change of color and shape of some debris hanging out from a hole at 4th floor in the north wall could be the signature of a fire event in that area at some time between March 15th and March 16th.

Yes, there was a further fire reported in a useless way that never properly confirmed it:

The fire at Unit 4 occurred (05:45 March 16th) TEPCO reported that no fire could be confirmed on the ground (06:15 March 16th).

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110317-1.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6,201
Apologies if this has already been asked & answered, but I'm wondering if the work in Unit 4 at the time of the earthquake (removing core barrel (??)) involves use of acetylene cutting torches, or other equipment involving tanks of flammable/explosive stuff? Wasn't it cold there in early March? -- maybe the construction crews had propane heaters inside? I can imagine that with the core offloaded, there could be a lot of non-seismic temporary stuff brought in for the work. Stuff prone to damage by the earthquake.

Or how about the turbine-generator cooling hydrogen system - does any of that pass through the reactor building? I wouldn't think so, but I have no experience at BWRs.

Just fishing for off the wall ideas here.
 
  • #6,202
elektrownik said:
I think that they move crane to take video of SFP or/and inside building from new point.

Yes. People said they had seen the crane around unit 4 at night, but as I mentioned in a previous post, times for spraying are published and its rare for these time to be at night. We do not consistently hear about temperatures they have measured in the pool, and have no way to know if they do this more than is mentioned in the press, but its quite probable that they are doing other things using the crane, possibly at night/early morning before sunrise.
 
  • #6,203
I_P said:
Looking at the righthand photo posted by MadderDoc above you can see that the buckled upper wall panels are putting strain on the wall and columns below. If the upper portion of the wall were to collapse and pull down the support columns below perhaps this would put additional strain on the fuel storage pool supporting structure. Maybe this is what the concern with unit 4 stability is...

Sorry the nameing of that photo file might've indicated to you that we are looking at the south wall where the fuel pool is. But, the photo is of the north wall.
 
  • #6,204
SteveElbows said:
That photo is a wall that's on the opposite side of the building to the fuel pool.

Personally I don't know exactly what makes them afraid, except to say that in general the building is in poor condition. Perhaps they are worried by what they see when they look into the hole that is lower down on the south side of the building, or the lower holes on the east side,certainly I assume that there is much detail we cannot see from the few photos we have, and that's part of the reason I don't think we have learned very much from all these hours spent (over)studying photos.

Who them, they?

Perhaps it is not so much what we have learnt, but what we have unlearnt. Think if all we had were the written reports, no imagery, think of what fancy theories we could come up with, based on the limited evidence, :-) and think how many of those we so readily can sort away and dismiss, based on what we know from photos.
 
  • #6,205
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e1.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e2.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e3.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e4.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e5.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e6.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e7.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e8.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e9.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e10.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e11.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e12.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110508e13.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6,206
MadderDoc said:
Who them, they?

Perhaps it is not so much what we have learnt, but what we have unlearnt. Think if all we had were the written reports, no imagery, think of what fancy theories we could come up with, based on the limited evidence, :-) and think how many of those we so readily can sort away and dismiss, based on what we know from photos.

I am pleased we got something, images soon after the event were more plentiful than I had hoped. There has not been enough new material in last month to satisfy peoples curiosities or give us something to feed off, so attempts to come up with something new have become somewhat desperate in recent weeks.

Anyway it sounds like if everything has gone according to plan, workers have entered reactor 1 through the doors that were opened on Sunday:

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said the doors of the No. 1 reactor building connecting it to the adjacent turbine building at the crisis-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were opened Sunday, paving the way for the utility to proceed with efforts to stabilize the damaged reactor.

The move came after the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency gave the go-ahead, saying it has assessed that opening the double-entry doors at the troubled facility would not have adverse impact on the environment.

Tokyo Electric, also known as TEPCO, said it plans to have workers go inside the reactor building at around 4 a.m. Monday to measure the levels of radioactivity inside.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/05/89826.html
 
  • #6,207
According to a press report, 'demolition robots' made by this company are going to be used at Fukushima:

http://www.brokk.com/

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110508002670.htm

[URL]http://krafttelerobotics.com/industries/nuclear/images/180r_large.jpg[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6,209
I'm sure all those nice vids are of Fukushima SFP 4 . But you know what they say, seen one spent fuel pool,seen them allo:)
And what a stroke of luck that none of those blasted rsj's or roof panels or concrete panels ended up in the pool,neat:smile:
 
  • #6,210
Tepco -"Units 4-6 ,outage due to regular inspection ." Well it's not a complete lie,but hmm
 

Similar threads

Fukushima Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster discussions
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
49K
Ukraine nuclear power plant Zaporizhzhia on fire
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Fukushima Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants Fukushima part 2
  • · Replies 2K ·
60
Replies
2K
Views
453K
Fukushima Are US Nuclear Power Plants Prepared for Earthquakes?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Fukushima Critiques of Fukushima Thyroid-Cancer Study
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
What if a nuclear power plant loses outside electricity?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
20K
Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects
  • · Replies 763 ·
26
Replies
763
Views
276K
Fukushima How will they end the Fukushima disaster?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
16K
Thoughts on nuclear power and disasters [long, rant/tangenty]
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Fukushima The geological issues of the Fukushima Daiichi
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K