https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-orders-japanese-reactor-shut-074717938.html
Well this isn't in America, how could it have any relevance? Last time I checked, I was American.
Quote from: hamsamich on Mar 09, 2016, 04:33
Well this isn't in America, how could it have any relevance? Last time I checked, I was American.
It is Nuclear News
Japan is dumb.....that is all.
Keep destroying your economy over radiophobia........
Keep increasing your emissions.....and reliance on foreign resources.
know buddy sayed hour judicial system was the only won two legislate from the bench
Having a court decide your safety features or actions are inadequate is simply not the way it should be. On the o0ther hand bake cores and you open up what you are doing to everyone. Fact is so long as the people are willing to pay extra the court is right.
https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,39288.msg188956.html#msg188956 (https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,39288.msg188956.html#msg188956)
QuoteConsidering that the Fukushima management was grossly negligent in the management of their site and the regulatory group in place at the time was as soft as they were, I'd say 4 years was a pretty darn quick turnaround for the Japanese Nuke Industry. A new regulatory group formed or realigned, whatever you want to call it. Mandatory modifications and inspections prior to restart. I completely understand wanting all modifications in place prior to any restarts. The entire country sits on the ring of fire and is basically at sea level.
Just try to imagine how bad it would have been if Besse would have went through the remaining 3/8" back in 02. How different would our industry be today?
Same topic, same opinion...
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 10, 2016, 09:33
Same topic, same opinion...
Quote from: ksheed12 on Aug 14, 2015, 09:39
How different would our industry be today? [2cents]
we would all be D&D specialists,...
Besse was never going to go through that last 3/8 inches. One scenario does not equate to the other. Besse issue was poor decision making and in some cases hiding items.
Here is what gets me... the judge issued the order because safety couldn't be guaranteed... No one can ever guarantee safety only minimize risk.
Quote from: Rerun on Mar 10, 2016, 09:47
...Besse was never going to go through that last 3/8 inches....
why is that?!?!?
I do get the stainless versus carbon erosion & corrosion processes,...
as I understand it, there was only 3/8" of primary, nonisolateable, pressure boundary at that 3/8" place,...
Is 3/8" of stainless enough pressure boundary to operate the plant?
Yepper! It is. It's NOT design and of course you need to maintain design basis. But 3/8 inch Stainless Steel is incredibly strong and within accident basis. It can't corrode. I am NOT saying your could or should operate with that as your barrier but the issue at Besse wasn't so much the barrier, it was how did you get there. I was in the Davis Besse restart review.
Quote from: Rerun on Mar 10, 2016, 10:11
Yepper! It is. It's NOT design and of course you need to maintain design basis. But 3/8 inch Stainless Steel is incredibly strong and within accident basis. It can't corrode. I am NOT saying your could or should operate with that as your barrier but the issue at Besse wasn't so much the barrier, it was how did you get there. I was in the Davis Besse restart review.
good to hear it,...
check your PMs,...
Quote from: Rerun on Mar 10, 2016, 09:47
Besse was never going to go through that last 3/8 inches. One scenario does not equate to the other. Besse issue was poor decision making and in some cases hiding items.
Are you saying that Fukushima and Besse are not similar? Was there not incredibly poor decision making and cases of hiding items at Fukushima?
For a simpleton like me the only difference I see is that the 3/8" SS did it's job and the 10 meter seawall/basement EDG's didn't.
Quote from: GLW on Mar 10, 2016, 09:44
we would all be D&D specialists,...
Most likely so.
edited to correct unit of measure
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 10, 2016, 11:19
Are you saying that Fukushima and Besse are not similar? Was there not incredibly poor decision making and cases of hiding items at Fukushima?
For a simpleton like me the only difference I see is that the 3/8" SS did it's job and the 10' seawall/basement EDG's didn't.
Most likely so.
I see pretty large differences,...
Fukushima had a 10 meter seawall, not a 10 foot seawall, so, for a nukeworker on a public forum, to get it wrong by a magnitude of ~3 measures, only serves the interests of those who hate nuke,...
Fukushima was challenged by a BIG natural event,...
DB was challenged by personal integrity,...
and that is just the start,.... :-\
I never said any such thing. What I said was they were nowhere near a LOCA and the 3/8 Inch Stainless Steel wasn't going to go anywhere.
BTW Fukushima had identified the Seawall issue and had in fact approved a new and higher seawall. Its a matter of what was prioritized and important at the time.
Not mention, Fukushima involved a total station blackout.....which also involved a total area blackout......and total surrounding area devastation.
Quote from: GLW on Mar 10, 2016, 12:32
I see pretty large differences,...
Fukushima had a 10 meter seawall, not a 10 foot seawall, so, for a nukeworker on a public forum, to get it wrong by a magnitude of ~3 measures, only serves the interests of those who hate nuke,...
Fukushima was challenged by a BIG natural event,...
DB was challenged by personal integrity,...
and that is just the start,.... :-\
My apologies, I did misstate the unit of measure. Thanks for the correction. 10 meter seawall vs. estimated 14+ meter wave.
Quote from: Rerun on Mar 10, 2016, 01:12
BTW Fukushima had identified the Seawall issue and had in fact approved a new and higher seawall. Its a matter of what was prioritized and important at the time.
QuoteSince the IAEA mission it has emerged that, in 2008, TEPCO did in fact perform some preliminary computer modeling that tentatively suggested the tsunami hazard to the plant had been severely underestimated. TEPCO stated that, at the time, it was not convinced of the simulations' reliability and intended to pursue them further in collaboration with the Japan Society of Civil Engineers. This follow-up appears not to have taken place. TEPCO informed NISA of its results only three years later on March 7, 2011.
These simulations assumed a repeat of the 869 AD earthquake. Because this event was larger than the earthquake on which previous simulations were based, Enhanced defenses would have widened safety margins at the plant and might have mitigated the consequences of a tsunami that was larger than the plant was designed to withstand. the resulting tsunami was predicted to be higher. Given the new simulations were based on an actual historical earthquake, they should have been followed up on immediately. Had the results been verified, TEPCO may have been able to take corrective action in time to avert the disaster of March 11, 2011.
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/fukushima.pdf (http://carnegieendowment.org/files/fukushima.pdf)
Of course hindsight is always 20/20.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-08/face-of-fukushima-refutes-government-s-nuclear-watchdog-stance (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-08/face-of-fukushima-refutes-government-s-nuclear-watchdog-stance)
Quote from: ksheed12 on Mar 10, 2016, 02:16
....Of course hindsight is always 20/20.
well that's right,...
you build up for a 100 year flood,....
is that enough?!?!?!
how about a 1000 year flood?!?!?!
or 10,000?!?!?
anyone for a million?!?!?
when does it end!?!?!?
I reckon you build for the event that IF it happens, THEN nobody survives to bitch about it,...
yep, I reckon that could be the best ticket,...
in hindsight,... 8)
And sometimes you just tip your cap to that bitch Mother Nature....
Quote from: Bonds 25 on Mar 10, 2016, 02:37
And sometimes you just tip your cap to that bitch Mother Nature....
(http://m3forum.net/m3forum/images/smilies/tiphatsmiley.gif)
Please re-title this post to something more descriptive.
Quote from: Rennhack on Mar 10, 2016, 05:08
Please re-title this post to something more descriptive.
ok [salute]
Quote from: Bonds 25 on Mar 10, 2016, 02:37
And sometimes you just tip your cap to that bitch Mother Nature....
n shake hands wit the devil, global warming.... raze the see level, watch ware the surf's at then.