Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

[from_the_NEK]

Looking at those pictures, I find it hard to believe that the pipes running into the reactor core are still able to carry water. There is a lot of damage.

That link to the MIT site BillSki posted has a lot of really good explanations about what is going on there and what could happen. Most recently, they gave a good analysis on what happens if the nuclear fuel melts through the core and onto the outer containment vessel's floor.

Here it is again for those that missed it:
http://mitnse.com/

 

[thetrailboss]

That is left of the molten core materials. It still is pretty freaky to look at. We had discussions in quantum mechanics and thermodynamic classes about the accident.

Definitely freaky. That looks like something out of a sci-fi movie.

 

[deadheadskier]

Hearing a bit more talk that the likelyhood that they'll need to employ a sand, clay and concrete kill like they did in Chernobyl is quite possible.

While I tend to be pro-nuclear, if I were Obama, I'd order an immediate shut down of the nuclear plant north of NYC along the Hudson and possibly other high population areas as well. If there was ever a problem at the Hudson facility, over 20 million people would need to evacuate the area based upon the same guidelines the US gov't is suggesting the zone should be in Japan. You want to talk a financial crisis the world has never known? The risk is too great to operate such a facility so close to the heart of the american economy.

 

[mondeo]

The risk is too great to operate such a facility so close to the heart of the american economy.

The severity is massive, but risk needs to include probability. That's where failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) comes into play. Take each failure scenario, assess probability of occurrence and effects of failure. Add up the risk from all scenarios and ensure, with some factor of safety, that they don't fall below some threshold.

The likelihood of another disaster occuring in the next 6 months is pretty damn small. Let them take the time to review safety requirements, reassess the risk, etc. before doing anything dramatic. Keep the permit process open, but make operation of any new reactors known to be at risk of needing to meet new safety requirements.

Any industry regulated for safety faces this type of stuff all the time, they just usually don't make headlines (unless some "whislteblower" goes public with claims that industry and regulators are too cozy, citing some trivial safety violation that has been caught and reported by the company at fault and is already in the process of being corrected) and are less severe in consequence. There are a lot of fears, irrational and rational, surrounding nuclear power. Without being incredibly safe, the industry dies; it's in their own best interest to be honest in their own risk assessments. Have patience and let the experts do their thing.

 

[Puck it]

The severity is massive, but risk needs to include probability. That's where failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) comes into play. Take each failure scenario, assess probability of occurrence and effects of failure. Add up the risk from all scenarios and ensure, with some factor of safety, that they don't fall below some threshold.

The likelihood of another disaster occuring in the next 6 months is pretty damn small. Let them take the time to review safety requirements, reassess the risk, etc. before doing anything dramatic. Keep the permit process open, but make operation of any new reactors known to be at risk of needing to meet new safety requirements.

Any industry regulated for safety faces this type of stuff all the time, they just usually don't make headlines (unless some "whislteblower" goes public with claims that industry and regulators are too cozy, citing some trivial safety violation that has been caught and reported by the company at fault and is already in the process of being corrected) and are less severe in consequence. There are a lot of fears, irrational and rational, surrounding nuclear power. Without being incredibly safe, the industry dies; it's in their own best interest to be honest in their own risk assessments. Have patience and let the experts do their thing.

I would like to read the FA report after it is done on this. What was the failure on the back up systems? Were the tanks of diesel wipe out or was it the generators? Where were these located? I would think that the original FMEA analysis would have taken into account an earthquake and tsunami, since they are in an active subduction zone. Big F-up if they did not.

 

[mondeo]

I would like to read the FA report after it is done on this. What was the failure on the back up systems? Were the tanks of diesel wipe out or was it the generators? Where were these located? I would think that the original FMEA analysis would have taken into account an earthquake and tsunami, since they are in an active subduction zone. Big F-up if they did not.

One of the articles I read said the FMEA considered both, but counted them as seperate incidents with probabilities not being correlated so they didn't consider a 9.0 with tsunami. Which, obviously, was a bad assumption.

 

[ctenidae]

One of the articles I read said the FMEA considered both, but counted them as seperate incidents with probabilities not being correlated so they didn't consider a 9.0 with tsunami. Which, obviously, was a bad assumption.

I read that, too, and thought it odd that they didn't relate them. Especially since the most common cause of a tsunami is, well, an earthquake...

 

[deadheadskier]

Here's a question. I'd have to assume that the military has a massive aresenal of mobilie diesel generators that can be dropped by helicopter. Shouldn't that have been the first attempt to restore power to the cooling systems instead of trying to rebuild actual power lines to the facility?

 

[deadheadskier]

One of the articles I read said the FMEA considered both, but counted them as seperate incidents with probabilities not being correlated so they didn't consider a 9.0 with tsunami. Which, obviously, was a bad assumption.

Apparently the facility on the Hudson is designed to handle a 6.0 quake. It sits right on fault. Lets hope that that fault isn't capable of ever producing a quake larger than 6.

 

[Puck it]

I read that, too, and thought it odd that they didn't relate them. Especially since the most common cause of a tsunami is, well, an earthquake...

If that is then that was a big oops. In geological active subduction, those two events pretty much go hand in hand. I find it unfathomable that the FMEA would treat it that way.

 

[tjf67]

If that is then that was a big oops. In geological active subduction, those two events pretty much go hand in hand. I find it unfathomable that the FMEA would treat it that way.

Thats the way I read it.

 

[Warp Daddy]

So in effect letting the Experts do their thing ( FMEA) in isolation may be prudent yet not necessarily an effective stratagem , when in fact IN THIS case their pre- event planning correlations failed to link the potential for co -extant events leading to this disaster.

H'mm sounds to me( an admitted layman ) like we need to re-assess our assessment protocols for analyzing potentialities as related to Nukie Poo's

 

[Puck it]

So in effect letting the Experts do their thing ( FMEA) in isolation may be prudent yet not necessarily an effective stratagem , when in fact IN THIS case their pre- event planning correlations failed to link the potential for co -extant events leading to this disaster.

H'mm sounds to me( an admitted layman ) like we need to re-assess our assessment protocols for analyzing potentialities as related to Nukie Poo's

When we do FMEA here, it usually involves a large group of experts and some outside of the current product. It amazes me that this was left off as a possibility of two events occuring given the location or even a tsnumai by itself.

When they get power back on, I will be very surprised if any of those cooling loops and tanks are intact. Those blasts took out reinforced concrete looking at the pics.

 

[Puck it]

One of the articles I read said the FMEA considered both, but counted them as seperate incidents with probabilities not being correlated so they didn't consider a 9.0 with tsunami. Which, obviously, was a bad assumption.

Have a link to the article?

 

[Puck it]

Here's a question. I'd have to assume that the military has a massive aresenal of mobilie diesel generators that can be dropped by helicopter. Shouldn't that have been the first attempt to restore power to the cooling systems instead of trying to rebuild actual power lines to the facility?

We were just talking about this at work too. There are huge generators on the flatbeds that should have been able to be flown in.

This could be a culture thing, were they trying to save face and not admit an issue. At work here, I run into this all of the time with dealing the Asian sites.

 

[mondeo]

When we do FMEA here, it usually involves a large group of experts and some outside of the current product. It amazes me that this was left off as a possibility of two events occuring given the location or even a tsnumai by itself.

When they get power back on, I will be very surprised if any of those cooling loops and tanks are intact. Those blasts took out reinforced concrete looking at the pics.

I'm wondering how much of the FMEA issue is age-related. My understanding is that there's been a lot of development in quality methods over the last 30-40 years; pre 1970 we just pushed stuff until it broke, now everything's by analysis with testing pretty much purely for model validation.

Have a link to the article?

I think it was Christian Science Monitor. I'll try to dig it out later.

 

[Morwax]

A back up system a few miles inland? Ponds pumps and generators on quake pads? GENIUS:beer:

 

[Puck it]

I'm wondering how much of the FMEA issue is age-related. My understanding is that there's been a lot of development in quality methods over the last 30-40 years; pre 1970 we just pushed stuff until it broke, now everything's by analysis with testing pretty much purely for model validation.



I think it was Christian Science Monitor. I'll try to dig it out later.

I would guess that procedures and systems would have to be updated. One would think things would be reevaluated over the 40 years.

 

[Morwax]

Nuclear plants around the world will tsunami proof and continue poisoning the the planet. Im ready to pedal a stationary bike to make my toast in the morning if thats what it takes.

 

[tjf67]

Have a link to the article?

It was on msmc when they updated the most dangerous plants in the US