Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(Independent) Panel doubts TEPCO claim tsunami caused nuke accident

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 09:11 AM
Original message
(Independent) Panel doubts TEPCO claim tsunami caused nuke accident
Panel doubts TEPCO claim tsunami caused nuke accident
December 06, 2011
By AKIRA SATO / Asahi Shimbun Weekly AERA

Not a few members of the government panel looking into the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant are skeptical about Tokyo Electric Power Co. pointing the finger of blame at an unprecedented tsunami.

"The claim that tsunami alone caused the accident is nothing but a hypothesis," said panel member Hitoshi Yoshioka, vice president at Kyushu University, who has written a book about the social history of nuclear energy.

"I feel a majority of panel members feel this way. It is close to a common understanding that it would not be good to trust as is TEPCO's analysis that tsunami was the cause of the accident."

The conclusion reached by the panel could have ground-shaking ramifications for other nuclear power plants in Japan....



This could have a profound effect on the ability of the country to resume use of their reactor fleet. They have 58 reactors and all but 8 are now idle (40) or closed permanently (10).

The latest shutdown is now progress and was caused by coolant leaking from a valve inside the containment vessel.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112070075
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Investigators think earthquake caused Fukushima meltdown, and I forgot to post the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Putting the plant where it is and ignoring critics allowed the "accident" to happen. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. If by "Putting the plant where it is" you mean "in Japan"...
TEPCO and the rest of the nuclear industry have a strong selfish motive to promote the assumption that it was the tsunami. The earthquake that the plant experienced was far weaker than the 9.0 forces at its epicenter; in fact it was only a bit more than the reactors' design parameters.
If one of them failed as a result of quake forces it means that every reactor in Japan, and anywhere else that is in an earthquake zone must be viewed with a very critical eye. And since earthquakes are a lot more common than tsunami it means that the costs of upgrading safety and/or forced shutdowns stands to be enormous.

This is the panel of people from outside the nuclear industry - independent investigators - that was created specifically to look over the industry's shoulders and make sure that the conclusions being fed to the public were on the up and up.

This is extremely significant news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Unfortunate title
Talk about burying the lead - how about "Quake, not tsunami, may have caused nuke accident."

Last March, it was clear that the quake exceeded the design standards, and a lot of people were impressed that the reactors had apparently held up against the quake (though certainly not the tsunami). I was in that group. But if #1 was already failing before the tsunami it puts the performance of the reactors in a far worse light.

So on one hand, it does significantly affect the narrative. On the other hand, I think we already know the standards applied in building the plant were deficient because they underestimated the earthquake strength they should have designed for - as well as the size of tsunami they needed to protect against. So in a sense it changes nothing, in that we already knew that many reactors are not built to withstand the quakes they might experience.

This problem also exists outside Japan - a lot of plants in the US were designed assuming much lower seismic hazards than those one would calculate today given more recent geological studies. As I recall Indian Point is considered among the riskiest - not so much because they expect big quakes but because the design assumed essentially no quakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. "we already know the standards applied in building the plant were deficient"
Edited on Wed Dec-07-11 02:39 PM by kristopher
That is actually a key point. In fact the directional forces at the plant site were only modestly in excess of design standards. The plant didn't experience anything approaching the 9.0 forces at the epicenter.

Here is a first person narrative of what people on the scene observed, published in July.
...The authors have spoken to several workers at the plant who recite the same story: Serious damage to piping and at least one of the reactors before the tsunami hit. All have requested anonymity because they are still working at the plant or are connected with TEPCO. One worker, a maintenance engineer in his late twenties who was at the Fukushima complex on March 11, recalls hissing and leaking pipes. “I personally saw pipes that came apart and I assume that there were many more that had been broken throughout the plant. There’s no doubt that the earthquake did a lot of damage inside the plant," he said. "There were definitely leaking pipes, but we don’t know which pipes – that has to be investigated. I also saw that part of the wall of the turbine building for Unit 1 had come away. That crack might have affected the reactor.”

The reactor walls of the reactor are quite fragile, he notes. “If the walls are too rigid, they can crack under the slightest pressure from inside so they have to be breakable because if the pressure is kept inside and there is a buildup of pressure, it can damage the equipment inside the walls so it needs to be allowed to escape. It’s designed to give during a crisis, if not it could be worse – that might be shocking to others, but to us it’s common sense.”

A second worker, a technician in his late 30s, who was also on site at the time of the earthquake, narrated what happened. “It felt like the earthquake hit in two waves, the first impact was so intense you could see the building shaking, the pipes buckling, and within minutes, I saw pipes bursting. Some fell off the wall. Others snapped. I was pretty sure that some of the oxygen tanks stored on site had exploded but I didn’t see for myself. Someone yelled that we all needed to evacuate and I was good with that. But I was severely alarmed because as I was leaving I was told and I could see that several pipes had cracked open, including what I believe were cold water supply pipes. That would mean that coolant couldn’t get to the reactor core. If you can’t sufficiently get the coolant to the core, it melts down. You don’t have to have to be a nuclear scientist to figure that out.”

As he was heading to his car, he could see the walls of the reactor one building itself had already started to collapse. “There were holes in them. In the first few minutes, no one was thinking about a tsunami. We were thinking about survival.”


Meltdown: What Really Happened at Fukushima?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/meltdown-what-really-happened-fukushima/39541/


Have you seen the table released by TEPCO of the earthquake's directional forces at the Fukushima #1 site?



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Found the numbers from TEPCO
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11040103-e.html




Glossary
· Observed Record of Earthquake Intensity
Record that indicates the intensity of an earthquake (Unit: gal)

· Regulatory Guide for Reviewing Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Reactor
Facilities
Revised in September 2006 based on the newly accumulated knowledge on
seismology and earthquake engineering and advanced technologies of
seismic design, this is a regulatory guide in reviewing the validity
of the seismic design of nuclear power reactor facilities.


· Basic Earthquake Ground Motion Ss
A basic earthquake ground motion in seismic design of facility,
stipulated in Regulatory Guide for Reviewing Seismic Design of Nuclear
Power Reactor Facilities

· Maximum Response Acceleration against Basic Earthquake Ground Motion Ss
Assuming Basic Earthquake Ground Motion Ss in the evaluation of the
earthquake-proof safety, this is the Maximum value of the quake of a
building, which is expressed in acceleration.



"Revised in September 2006 based on the newly accumulated knowledge on seismology and earthquake engineering and advanced technologies of seismic design, this is a regulatory guide in reviewing the validity of the seismic design of nuclear power reactor facilities."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-08-11 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thanks
So they upped the standards a few years ago and supposedly retrofitted systems to withstand ground motion comparable to what they actually saw, and the reactor that appears to have performed worst did not actually exceed the revised "design" acceleration. If so, I wonder whether the fault lies more in the engineering or in the quality of the work. TEPCO certainly has done nothing to earn the public's confidence in the way they've run their affairs...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-08-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The nuclear industry is going to have to stop scapegoating.
You got away with it when Chernobyl went ballistic, but it doesn't fly with Japan. Their engineering in ALL areas is far above average and with regard to earthquakes they are head and shoulders above the rest of the world.

If THEY can't be trusted to provide safe nuclear plants, it is bloody fucking obvious that no one can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. You just can't trust the nuclear industry.
And we know why this as been unrecced to zero:
anti-democratic anti-science pro-nukes want to keep people misinformed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
diane in sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-08-11 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
10. Good info Kris, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 21st 2024, 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC