Nuclear Safety Advocate believes temperatures are thousands of degrees in reactor

[flamingdem]

You see here the casing in the reactor one building and you see the heat signature here, the yellow and red. In reactor one, the government says the Ministry of Defense says the highest temperature 58 degrees centigrade so about 136.4 Fahrenheit the government say, what does that image tell you?

ARNIE GUNDERSEN, NUCLEAR SAFETY ADVOCATE: I don’t believe the highest temperature is anywhere near that. It’s probably much nearer to thousands of degrees, but — what it does show me is you’ll see sort of like a line, a straight line of hot material.

I don’t know anything inside that nuclear containment that’s a straight line. It’s all curves. So it shows me that the geometry of the hot material is distorted.

KING: What is that — if it’s been distorted, what that mean is happening inside?

GUNDERSEN: It will be — it will be harder to cool it because it looks to me like the energy is not in the spot where it should be. Looks to me like it’s formed a long line and it’s not good, but I’m more concerned about some of the other reactor there. MORE AT THE LINK ... interview continues here:

http://enenews.com/nuclear-consultant-doubts-official-temperature-estimates-reactor-3-nearer-thousands-degrees

[jpak]

1. need the link!

:hi:

[flamingdem]

2. Sorry just added it now! oops nt

[MineralMan]

3. Hmm...the guy's not there, we don't know his credentials,

and yet we're accepting his word on this. Does he actually know anything about reactors, or is he just an opponent of nuclear power without having any scientific or engineering training? We don't know that.

Diagnosing problems with a reactor from thousands of miles away seems a bit unreliable to me.

Lots of this going on right now.

[flamingdem]

5. There's even more shooting of the messenger by

people who just simply don't want to deal with the disaster.

Unfortunately that is what usually happens. Those who shoot the messenger win and the nuclear industry continues to get away with lies.

[MineralMan]

7. Actually, I have been opposed to the use of nuclear energy

for power generation since 1959, when a reactor near my California home had a meltdown. I'm not supporting any nuclear power installation. What I am doing is insisting that information be accurately presented by people who are in a position to know, rather than to speculate.

This story is about speculation on the part of someone who has no direct information about what is going on in the reactor in Japan. That's my objection. Dealing with the situation means dealing with what is actually going on, not with speculation.

[kristopher]

8. You damned sure push it a lot for someone opposed.

[MineralMan]

10. I push for facts. I comment on speculation.

This person is speculating, based on no actual experience with this plant in Japan. Speculation is not helpful.

When speculation is used to oppose something, and it is then demonstrated to be not factual, the opposition does not succeed. Facts make good arguments. Speculation loses arguments.

[kristopher]

13. Perhaps you could explain why his experience is irrelevant or where he is wrong?

Instead of a barrage of hyperbole on your part.

As to "pushing for facts"; that is horsehockey. It might be the persona you try to cultivate, but your record is clear - you push FOR nuclear and AGAINST its competition - consistently.

[MineralMan]

14. He is commenting based on some infrared photos taken

of the reactor in question. He is not on site. He is not studying actual measurements, nor is he part of any team that is working on this particular incident. He is speculating. As for his experience, it appears that he really has none of any depth. I cannot see that he has the expertise to justify his statements about what he believes the conditions to be in that reactor.

He is not there. He has not been there. He has not supervised any incident at any reactor. He's a teacher. He has a degree in nuclear engineering, but has not been employed in that role since 1990. He's a teacher and an anti-nuclear activist. That's fine, but his pronouncements on actual conditions in this reactor are based on speculation.

We have more speculation about this incident than is useful. His is just one more instance of that, and it appears to be aimed at stirring things up, rather than solving the problem.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

32. He is vetted as an expert witness by the NRC and others

I made several posts a while back in another thread a while back about his background,
here is an excerpt from one post in that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=228408&mesg_id=228807

<snip>

5. I have qualified as an expert witness before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), in Federal Court, the State of Vermont Public Service
Board, the State of Vermont Environmental Court, and the Florida Public Service
Commission.

<snip>

[MineralMan]

37. That may well be true, but it does not mean he has

expertise in evaluating thermal images of a particular reactor. I believe he is mistaken in his interpretation of that image, based on other information directly from the site. I think he is speculating or, at best, making a statement he is unqualified to make. Analyzing thermal images is a specialty, and not a skill he would need to be an "expert witness" on some other topic.

[kristopher]

46. I think you are deliberately attempting to downplay the problem

Gunderson: "I don't believe the highest temperature is anywhere near that. It's probably much nearer to thousands of degrees, but -- what it does show me is you'll see sort of like a line, a straight line of hot material.

I don't know anything inside that nuclear containment that's a straight line. It's all curves. So it shows me that the geometry of the hot material is distorted."


Mineral Man: "I think he is speculating or, at best, making a statement he is unqualified to make."


On what basis to you dispute this?

What "straight lines" are present in the Mark I core from the top?

[MineralMan]

57. What you think I'm attempting is wrong.

Actually, if you look at the design of that reactor, you'll see many straight lines. But, you haven't done that. Gunderson is saying the thing that is not. The grid of fuel rods is just that - a grid. Go look it up.

Gunderson interpreted a thermal image that was on the internet. I doubt he spent much time doing so, perhaps because he isn't an expert on thermal images. He saw what looked like a straight line, but ignored the temperatures shown on the other three images, which had the same temperatures displayed. There was nothing remarkable about those temperatures, since they appeared on all the images, except for the top left one, which showed one of the reactors with an intact outer building.

Go look at the interior of those reactors. See if you can't find those straight lines. Then, look at how the reactor vessel is made. Look, then write.

[kristopher]

58. Why should you have greater validity than Gundersen?

You admitted that your initial position which you CLEARLY dug your heels in on, had absolutely no basis in knowledge you possessed.

YOU admitted that.

What is the chance that you would now admit error?

[MineralMan]

59. I have no validity in asking questions about Gunderson's

knowledge of thermal imaging. Does he have expertise in that field. As for nuclear power generation, though, I spent three years on the primary interveners group at the Diablo Canyon project, before the plant was built. I learned a great deal, and my engineering education served me well in that capacity. I do not claim to be a nuclear expert. I am not. I am, however, very good at spotting exaggeration when it comes to technical matters. You don't know me. You don't know my education or background.

Gunderson was speaking beyond his expertise. I do know that. If you know him, you could ask him.

[kristopher]

61. You were clearly on a mission to malign Gundersen with no basis for your assertions.

You are damned by your own words.

I too am very good as spotting exaggeration, as well determining the intent of the communications act. That is founded in study of cultural anthropology and linguistics. Your communications acts do not comport with your claims of objectivity. The admittedly baseless nature of the charges you made is a significant piece of information in and of itself that reflect poorly on the validity of your subsequent words...

Just admit you went off half cocked, then prove Gundersen wrong. I'll be happy to give greater weight to your claims. All you've offered so far is... nothing.

[MineralMan]

62. Nope. You're wrong about that, I'm certain.

You have a nice evening. We'll see, eventually, what the facts are.

[kristopher]

66. The evidence for this discussion is right on this thread.

You made unsubstantiated claims that in subsequent dialogue you admitted you had no foundation for because you lack the requisite knowledge to perform the evaluation you nonetheless INSISTED was absolutely correct.

You then selected the blog of a known agent of the Nuclear Energy Institute (a PR/lobbying agency for the nuclear industry) that specializes in producing specious rationales attacking the character of anyone critical of the Nuclear Industry as support for your baseless comments.

The effect of you acts was to influence opinion in a manner inconsistent with the known evidence; a manner that minimized negative perceptions of the nuclear industry.

That is documented in this thread.

[FBaggins]

69. Lol! The "evidence" was in the title of the OP.

Gunderson did the damage to his own reputation with the ridiculou statement that temperatures were in the multiple thousands of degrees.

Nobody else had to help him.

[FBaggins]

73. More evidence.

Gundersen anounced four or five days ago that he would be taking potasium iodine pills "as soon as the cloud gets here". If there's enough iodine to detect... he's taking the pills.

He does all the damage to his own credibility that could possibly be necessary.

If he ever did understand the technology, he long ago sacrificed it at the altar of his paycheck.

[godai]

11. I see your point but also your position on Fukushima.

We'll soon know if anyone at Fukushima is not being truthful. The article you link to seems intended to inflame the situation. The guy spins a worst case situation which no one else has suggested as true. Is he lying or just spinning his views.

I hope that we all are wishing for a good resolution to the problems at Fukushima, right? I believe that things are slowly moving in a good direction.

[bananas]

15. Arnie Gundersen is a nuclear engineer and was a VP before blowing the whistle on safety problems

[bananas]

19. Here's a 1995 NYT article about his lawsuit: "Paying The Price For Blowing The Whistle"

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/nyregion/paying-the-price-for-blowing-the-whistle.html?pagewanted=all

Paying The Price For Blowing The Whistle
By Julie Miller
Published: February 12, 1995

FOR three years, Arnold Gundersen was awakened by harassing phone calls in the middle of the night. He became so concerned about his family's safety that he bought a large dog for protection. The problem? He was a whistle-blower, one of those who take on the dismally unpopular role of exposing what they find to be unsafe or unlawful practices in the workplace, especially the nuclear workplace.

"It feels like you're in a fort surrounded by Indians, and you send for help," Mr. Gundersen said. "You hear the hoofbeats of the cavalry in the distance as it finally comes toward you. But they start shooting at you."

Mr. Gundersen, who lives in Warren, told of the day in 1990 when he discovered radioactive material in an accounting safe at Nuclear Energy Services in Danbury, the consulting firm where he held a $120,000-a-year job as senior vice president. Three weeks after he notified the company president of what he believed to be radiation safety violations, Mr. Gundersen said, he was fired.

He is fighting a $1.5 million lawsuit filed against him by his former employer for continuing to discuss the alleged safety violations publicly after agreeing to an out-of-court settlement. Mr. Gundersen said he believes he was blacklisted, citing an April 22, 1991, letter concerning him that the company sent to 78 people. He also says he was harassed and fired for doing what he thought was right.

<snip>

[MineralMan]

22. Yes, and so? How does that affect his ability to

read and interpret a thermal image of that reactor? He has no direct information regarding this particular reactor or the damage it has incurred. He is speculating. When he presents some factual information, based on actual experience with this particular situation, then I'll pay more attention to it.

[bananas]

24. There's a lot more to his background - you were posting bullshit by a paid shill attacking a whistle

attacking a whistleblower - that pisses me off.
I had to find a link quickly to counteract your bullshit character assassination post.

[MineralMan]

4. Here's a bit more information on this Arnie Gunderson...

He may not be the expert he claims to be...

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2011/02/arnie-gundersen-has-inflated-his-resume.html

[flamingdem]

6. What's wrong w/you MM? You are picking the most right wing jerks to support

your arguments. Let's face it you just want to be right. I remember that you were just as cranky about the backscatter issue, and attacking over that as well. As expected now they are under scrutiny for what they have hoisted on the public.

I'm sure you are aware of the "profit motive"?

[MineralMan]

9. There's nothing wrong with me, other than a sore tooth that my

dentist will look at this afternoon. I do object to speculation on nuclear safety issues by a person who has some questionable background and who is nowhere near the reactor he's discussing. We have more than enough speculation on what's going on in Japan. What we need is factual information, based on actual observations. This is not that.

Please discuss content, not posters.

[flamingdem]

16. I'm happy to see elsewhere you are critical of nuclear energy

Please accept my apologies, hope your tooth feels better!

[bananas]

23. Rod Adams has a questionable background - he's a paid shill - yet you mindlessly quoted him

You just looked for some bullshit by a shill and posted it without verifying it.

[MineralMan]

26. I posted a link. I didn't quote anyone.

[bananas]

29. You made a despicable character assassination of a whistleblower.

Despicable.

[FBaggins]

31. A little less than "despicable"... I did find it interesting

that he claims to be a "licensed reactor operator". the refutation of that exaggeration may have been printed by a source you don't like, but the facts came from his own testimony.

[kristopher]

27. Rod Adams is the worst sort of the slime

His discussions follow the same smear and discredit strategy that Limbaugh etal have made so popular with a particular mindset.

[FBaggins]

33. A paid shill? That sounds bad. Can you explain what that is?

For instance... if someone is a strong advocate for a particular position and earns his money doing that (even, say, testifying in court), do you mean that that's a bad thing?

So... should we... ignore whatever such a person might say on the subject?

Just wondering. :)

[MineralMan]

36. Personally, I think we should look at each individual statement

or position and examine it for accuracy. That seems to be the best approach. I wouldn't assume than someone working with nuclear power generation, which I find dangerous, isn't providing accurate information. In the same way, I wouldn't assume that someone who is an activist against nuclear power generation is always providing accurate information. Each piece of information must be evaluated separately.

In the current topic, I believe the assessment of Mr. Gundersen regarding the meaning of a thermal image found on the internet is quite possibly incorrect and exaggerated. I doubt his expertise in evaluating such images, given the other information we have regarding the Fukushima incident.

[FBaggins]

40. Seems reasonable.

I believe the assessment of Mr. Gundersen regarding the meaning of a thermal image found on the internet is quite possibly incorrect and exaggerated.

If he's a nuclear expert, he should know that it isn't really possible (assuming that he was cited accurately). Thousands of degrees?

This isn't just an issue of misreading an image, it's misunderstanding what it would take for there to be a multi-thousand-degree temperature on that scan.

[MineralMan]

41. If you look at the colors in the images, then compare

them for the intact building on the left and the exposed containment vessel on the right, it's clear that the temperatures are not all that different. Now, I'm not an expert on thermal images, but I know how they work. Making assessments of what's going on inside the reactor vessel, based on that evidence seems highly speculative to me. I see the straight line he mentions, but don't know the structure of the containment vessel. He might know that, but the temperature gradient doesn't seem high enough to draw the conclusions he draws.

I suspect he made some sort of off-handed remark, based on a quick look at those images. That's my best case scenario. I don't want to think about a worst case scenario for his statement.

[kristopher]

49. At what temperature does the fuel start losing it structural integrity?

That is a known number from which could legitimately be deduced information regarding an extant general range of temperature, correct?


Gunderson: "I don't believe the highest temperature is anywhere near that. It's probably much nearer to thousands of degrees, but -- what it does show me is you'll see sort of like a line, a straight line of hot material.
I don't know anything inside that nuclear containment that's a straight line. It's all curves. So it shows me that the geometry of the hot material is distorted."

Mineral Man: "I see the straight line he mentions, but don't know the structure of the containment vessel. He might know that, but the temperature gradient doesn't seem high enough to draw the conclusions he draws."



Gunderson is a world recognized authority on nuclear safety, he is not a novice or a hack.

On the other side of that, you admit *you yourself* actually know nothing relevant to YOUR evaluation.

1) You claim to know nothing of Gunderson's background, and yet you entered the discussion sure that Gunderson's deserved to be dismissed.

2) You also reveal that you have no basis for your doubt about of his statement regarding the geometry of the core. Quote Mineral Man, "I ... don't know the structure of the containment vessel"

I suspect you are trying to protect the nuclear industry for unknown reasons. That is my best case scenario, I don't want to think about a worse case scenario for your statements.

[wtmusic]

38. Amen. When the real experts can't deliver fear porn

they turn to the Robert Alvarezes and Arne Gundersons.

Unfortunately it creates a lot of apprehension among reasonable people too.

[kristopher]

51. Are you aware that the "experts" from within the nuclear industry are the least trusted

...scientists in the world?

That mistrust did not develop by accident. The "experts" you endorse have been consistently shown to downplay everything negative in every area of concern to public policy. They may the intricacies of nuclear chemistry, but, as a class, they clearly have no more credibility than "experts" proffered by any other hired gun representing the PR agencies of for-profit corporations under threat.

Gunderson's role is to represent the public interest, not the corporations. His background as a whistle-blower and beyond confirms his dedication to the personal values that place a high priority on truth and integrity.

Lying to the public to protect for profit industry demonstrates exactly the opposite - values that place a higher priority on loyalty to an economic institution over the needs of the public.

[kristopher]

12. Gunderson just identified a significant safety flaw in the AP1000 that the NRC missed

Shoot some other messenger, this one doesn't fly. He is damned sure more authoritative than "Atomic insights"

[FBaggins]

30. No he didn't. He INVENTED a "safety flaw" that nobody else seems to agree IS a flaw.

n/t

But I think we should just hold on to this thread. It's all the proof we need that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

He seriously thinks that the reactors are in the thousands of degrees? Does he not even understand what the fission products are in the fuel and how the decay heat declines over time? It's been ten days for goodness sake!

[kristopher]

52. Really? By "everybody" you mean the regulators that did this, right?

Davis Besse UCS




http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation/images.html

Davis Besse: Incident history

Over the years of its operation, the plant has experienced several incidents, none of which have resulted in exposure to dangerous levels of radiation.


On September 24, 1977, the reactor, running at only 9% power, shut down because of a disruption in the feedwater system.<4> This caused the relief valve for the pressurizer to stick open. As of 2005, the NRC considers this to be the fourth highest ranked safety incident.<5>

Loss of feedwater event
On June 9, 1985, the main feedwater pumps, used to supply water to the reactor steam generators, shut down. A control room operator then attempted to start the auxiliary (emergency) feedwater pumps. These pumps both tripped on overspeed conditions because of operator error. This incident was originally classified an "unusual event" (the lowest classification the NRC uses) but it was later determined that it should have been classified a "site area emergency".<6>

Tornado
On June 24, 1998 the station was struck by an F2 tornado.<7> The plant's switchyard was damaged and access to external power was disabled. The plant's reactor automatically shut down at 8:43 pm and an alert (the next to lowest of four levels of severity) was declared at 9:18 pm. The plant's emergency diesel generators powered critical facility safety systems until external power could be restored.<8><9>


Erosion of the 6-inch-thick (150 mm) carbon steel reactor head, caused by a persistent leak of borated water.



Reactor head hole

In March 2002, plant staff discovered that the boric acid that serves as the reactor coolant had leaked from cracked control rod drive mechanisms directly above the reactor and eaten through more than six inches<10> of the carbon steel reactor pressure vessel head over an area roughly the size of a football (see photo). This significant reactor head wastage left only 3/8 inch of stainless steel cladding holding back the high-pressure (~2500 psi) reactor coolant. A breach would have resulted in a loss-of-coolant accident, in which superheated, superpressurized reactor coolant could have jetted into the reactor's containment building and resulted in emergency safety procedures to protect from core damage or meltdown. Because of the location of the reactor head damage, such a jet of reactor coolant may have damaged adjacent control rod drive mechanisms, hampering or preventing reactor shut-down. As part of the system reviews following the accident, significant safety issues were identified with other critical plant components, including the following: (1) the containment sump that allows the reactor coolant to be reclaimed and reinjected into the reactor; (2) the high pressure injection pumps that would reinject such reclaimed reactor coolant; (3) the emergency diesel generator system; (4) the containment air coolers that would remove heat from the containment building; (5) reactor coolant isolation valves; and (6) the plant's electrical distribution system.<11> Under certain scenarios, a reactor rupture would have resulted in core meltdown and/or breach of containment and release of radioactive material. The resulting corrective operational and system reviews and engineering changes took two years. Repairs and upgrades cost $600 million, and the Davis-Besse reactor was restarted in March 2004.<12> The U.S. Justice Department investigated and penalized the owner of the plant over safety and reporting violations related to the incident. The NRC determined that this incident was the fifth most dangerous nuclear incident in the United States since 1979.<3>

Criminal prosecutions
On January 20, 2006, the owner of Davis-Besse, FirstEnergy Corporation of Akron, Ohio, acknowledged a series of safety violations by former workers, and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. The deferred prosecution agreement relates to the March 2002 incident (see above). The deferment granted by the NRC were based on letters from Davis-Besse engineers stating that previous inspections were adequate. However, those inspections were not as thorough as the company suggested, and as proved by the material deficiency discovered later. In any case, because FirstEnergy cooperated with investigators on the matter, they were able to avoid more serious penalties. Therefore, the company agreed to pay fines of $23.7 million, with an additional $4.3 million to be contributed to various groups, including the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat for Humanity, and the University of Toledo as well as to pay some costs related to the federal investigation.
Two former employees and one former contractor were indicted for statements made in multiple documents and one videotape, over several years, for hiding evidence that the reactor pressure vessel was being corroded by boric acid. The maximum penalty for the three is 25 years in prison. The indictment mentions that other employees also provided false information to inspectors, but does not name them.<13><14>

2008 discovery tritium leak
The NRC and Ohio EPA were notified of a tritium leak accidentally discovered during an unrelated fire inspection on October 22, 2008. Preliminary indications suggest radioactive water did not infiltrate groundwater outside plant boundaries<15>

2009 unintentional discharge of firearm
In November 2009, a plant security officer was using the restroom and his firearm discharged while in the holster. The officer sustained a non life threatening wound to his calf. No cause was found for the discharge.<16>

2010 Replacement reactor head problems
After the 2002 incident, Davis-Besse purchased a used replacement head from a mothballed reactor in Midland, Michigan. Davis-Besse operators replaced the original cracked reactor head before restarting in 2004. On March 12, 2010, during a scheduled refueling outage, ultrasonic examinations performed on the control rod drive mechanism nozzles penetrating the reactor vessel closure head identified that two of the nozzles inspected did not meet acceptance criteria. FirstEnergy investigators subsequently found new cracks in 24 of 69 nozzles, including one serious enough to leak boric acid. Root cause analysis is currently underway by the Department of Energy, First Energy, and the NRC to determine the cause of the premature failures.<17> <18> Crack indications required repair prior to returning the vessel head to service. Control rod drive nozzles were repaired using techniques proven at other nuclear facilities. The plant resumed operation in 2010. The existing reactor vessel head is scheduled for replacement in 2011.<19>


Future

The facility's original nuclear operating license expires on April 22, 2017. On August 11, 2006 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted a letter of intent (Adams Accession No. ML062290261).<20> The submission date for the application is August 10, 2010. This initiates a long process that results in an application approval or revocation. Public hearings<21> are a vital part of any application review and information on this process can be found on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) website at NRC.gov. <4>. The site map contains many valuable links <22>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station#cite_note-21


This page was last modified on 16 March 2011 at 22:20.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

That is a sketch of the facts. Below, the is the 28 page policy analysys by the Union of Concerned Scientists puts them into a meaningful framework built around the relationship between the industry and its regulators.

Davis-Besse: One Year Later
Nearly one year ago, on March 6, 2002, workers repairing a cracked control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzle at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Ohio discovered a football-sized cavity in the reactor vessel head.1 Their finding is linked to two other discoveries 15 years earlier. On March 13, 1987, workers at Turkey Point Unit 4 in Florida discovered that a small leak of borated water had corroded the reactor vessel head. Their revelation prompted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to require all owners of pressurized water reactors,2including Davis-Besse, to take specific measures to protect plant equipment from boric acid corrosion. On March 24, 1987, the NRC learned that control room operators at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania had been discovered sleeping while on duty. That revelation prompted the NRC to issue an order on March 31st requiring Peach Bottom Unit 3 to be immediately shut down.3

The three findings spanning 15 years are intertwined. Turkey Point demonstrated that a small amount of boric acid leaking onto the reactor vessel head corrodes carbon steel at a high rate. Had the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, the owner of Davis-Besse, remembered Turkey Point’s lesson, the serious damage at Davis-Besse would have been averted. Peach Bottom demonstrated that a pervasive safety culture problem creates unacceptable conditions for operating a nuclear power plant. Had NRC remembered either Turkey Point’s or Peach Bottom’s lesson, they would have issued the order they drafted to shut down Davis-Besse. It would have been the first shut down order issued by the agency since the Peach Bottom order. But both FirstEnergy and the NRC forgot the past and relived the wrong event from March 1987 by having yet another reactor vessel head damaged by boric acid corrosion.

Many individuals, from both within and outside the NRC, have accused the agency’s move towards risk- informed decision-making as the reason for its failure to issue the order to shut down Davis-Besse. On the contrary, the NRC’s handling of circumferential cracking of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles as reported by the Oconee nuclear plant in February 2001 was a successful demonstration of proper application of risk-informed decision-making with the sole and significant exception of its mistake in not issuing the shut down order for Davis-Besse. But even that mistake, as bad as it was, does not impugn the risk-informed decision-making process for the simple reason that the NRC deviated from that process. Had the NRC adhered to its risk-informed decision-making process, it would have issued the shut down order for Davis-Besse and capped off a stellar example of how this process can and should be used.

In February 2001, the NRC learned of a new aging mechanism, the circumferential cracking of stainless steel CRDM nozzles based on inspection results from Oconee. The NRC properly reacted to this finding by revisiting the nuclear industry’s inspection regime for CRDM nozzles. It determined that the existing inspection regime did not provide adequate assurance that circumferential cracks would be identified and repaired. The NRC did not require all plant owners to immediately address this inspection shortfall, which would have imposed an unnecessary regulatory burden on those plants with low susceptibility for the problem. Nor did the NRC allow all plant owners to address the shortfall at their next regularly scheduled refueling outage, which would have imposed an unnecessary challenge to safety margins at those plants with high susceptibility. Instead, the NRC applied risk-informed decision-making by issuing Bulletin 2001-01 in August 2001 to all owners of pressurized water reactors. This Bulletin required the high susceptible reactors to resolve the inspection shortfall by December 2001, the medium susceptible reactors to resolve the inspection shortfall at their next regularly scheduled outage, and merely collected information from the low susceptible reactors.

Only two reactors with high susceptibility for circumferential cracking of CRDM nozzles did not conform to the inspection requirements...

At this point, the NRC abandoned its risk-informed decision-making process.....

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/davis-besse_retrospective_030303db.pdf

[FBaggins]

55. Along with everyone else who matters.

n/t

[amerfayed]

18. Atomic Insights...

"Atomic energy activist. Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast"

[bananas]

20. Rod Adams is a paid shill and a crackpot

I posted a 1995 article about Gundersen's lawsuit, how is it that Rod Adams missed that?
Why is Rod Adams attacking a whistleblower?
The nuclear industry hates whistleblowers and will lie cheat and steal to discredit them.

[jeff47]

17. Um....problem.....

The reactor vessel is made from stainless steel. Stainless steel melts at "thousands of degrees". (Roughly 2,500F. Varies widely based on the alloy). Not to mention the alloy that clads the fuel pellets would be on fire, leading to releases of a lot more than "steam".

The fact that the reactor vessels are not currently liquid and/or on fire kinda implies his speculation is off. Adding this to his anti-nuke position, I'm having trouble believing his assessment.

[kristopher]

25. You don't know the alloy abut the melting temp you also don't know proves Gunderson wrong.

Got it. Perhaps you could narrow it down a bit before making premature claims?

I guess instructions have gone out "drop all pretense of objectivity and go full bore go nuclear!"

[jeff47]

28. Well, he didn't provide an actual temperature

so specific alloy melting temperature doesn't matter either. Why do you expect a random person on the Internet to provide more data than a supposed expert? Shouldn't he have a much better idea than someone armed only with 'the google'?

And pointing out that this guy appears to be talking out of his ass has nothing to do with supporting nuclear power or not. You can agree with someone on a particular issue, but find their statements in support of that position objectionable. Let's say you're against our current activities in Libya. If an expert came out and said we shouldn't be in Libya "because they're sub-human savages not worth saving", you'd probably disagree with that statement while agreeing that we shouldn't be there.

Nor does pointing out logical flaws have anything to do with the supposed expertise of the speaker. Famously, Einstein added his "cosmological constant" in order to get a static universe. He was wrong. Doesn't mean he wasn't qualified, or was an idiot.

[MineralMan]

34. It seems that my reservations about Mr. Gundersen's evaluation

of a thermal image from the internet has raised the ire of many. I'm sorry about that, but I maintain that his "analysis" of this image is speculative, at best. I linked to a website that had some information about Mr. Gunderson. That information called into question his expertise and resume as a nuclear expert. I cannot vouch for the author of that website, so that's possibly a valid comment.

However Mr. Gunderson has no direct experience regarding the conditions at the Fukushima reactors, and is not present at that site. His comments about that thermal image appear to have been offhanded and not well-considered. They were purely speculative and not based on real-time knowledge of conditions at that plant. As such, they were ill-advised, at best.

I am, and have been, an opponent of the use of nuclear reactors to generate electricity. That opposition is long-standing and active. I am also opposed to the use of speculation and exaggeration in attempts to oppose nuclear power generation. I believe that tactic to be misplaced and counter-productive. There is plenty of real, accurate evidence that nuclear power plants are unsafe. Fukushima is yet another piece of that evidence. It is bad enough without the need for speculation and exaggeration.

I will repeat what I have written and said many times: Nuclear power generation is unsafe. It has always been unsafe, and cannot be made to be safe. It should be prohibited.

[kristopher]

53. That is because your criticisms do not appear to be based on the facts.

At what temperature does the fuel in the core start losing it structural integrity? That is a known number from which could legitimately be deduced information regarding an extant general range of temperature, correct?

Gunderson: "I don't believe the highest temperature is anywhere near that. It's probably much nearer to thousands of degrees, but -- what it does show me is you'll see sort of like a line, a straight line of hot material.
I don't know anything inside that nuclear containment that's a straight line. It's all curves. So it shows me that the geometry of the hot material is distorted."

Mineral Man: "I see the straight line he mentions, but don't know the structure of the containment vessel. He might know that, but the temperature gradient doesn't seem high enough to draw the conclusions he draws."

Gunderson is a world recognized authority on nuclear safety, he is not a novice or a hack.

On the other side of that, you admit *you yourself* actually know nothing relevant to YOUR evaluation.

1) You claim to know nothing of Gunderson's background, and yet you entered the discussion sure that Gunderson's deserved to be dismissed.

2) You also reveal that you have no basis for your doubt about of his statement regarding the geometry of the core. Quote Mineral Man, "I ... don't know the structure of the containment vessel"

I suspect you are trying to protect the nuclear industry for unknown reasons. That is my best case scenario, I don't want to think about a worse case scenario for your statements.

[MineralMan]

60. Nope. I'm not trying to protect the nuclear industry in any way.

Please read some of my other posts. You could start with the journal entry that describes a meltdown near my home in 1959. You've got me way wrong on this. I am, however, very solid on my insistence on accurate information from both sides. When something suspect appears, you can count on me to point it out, whether it comes from the nuclear industry or the opponents of that industry. Truth is the answer. It is the only answer.

Now, I'm done with this conversation.

[kristopher]

63. You do know that this is an anonymous internet forum, right?

That is a huge problem. Expecting to have your position established by unverifiable claims as opposed to the actual opinions you contribute is completely irrational.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x713837

[MineralMan]

65. I have no idea how that link applies to anything here.

But, that's OK. I'm moving on to other threads now. I'm not anonymous, though. I make no secret about who I am or what I represent. See my profile, and the link in my signature line. See you around the web.

[noneisthenumber]

67. You Don't Seem Like A Nuke Ind.Booster To Me

Your statements seem well reasoned, I would have to agree with you that what we need is objective facts, i.e. truths. These do not seem to be easy to come by however, especially when it comes to the subject of the nuclear power industry, its safety and it's environmental and health implications.

[MineralMan]

70. Well, thanks.

[hunter]

35. I might have been a professional "nuclear safety advocate" like Gundersen.

Looks like I've got the "credentials." But it would have made me feel dirty.

I remember sitting through hearings listening to both sides throw shit and thinking to myself that the truth was NOT somewhere in the middle.

The guys at Southern California Edison could tell some real whoppers and then some guy on our side would throw out something as ludicrous. Rinse and Repeat with PG&E.

I'm still extremely cynical about the entire business.

[MineralMan]

39. Yup. I was part of the intervening group during the period

before Diablo Canyon was built. I grew very weary of the smoke being blown up people's legs from both sides. It was very difficult to get to the actual data and actual concerns. I finally left the organization, due to the amount of bullshit that was being generated. It was almost as much bullshit as the stuff P.G.&E. was disseminating.

I remained opposed to nuclear power generation, though, and still am. There are good, strong, reasons for opposition, and they are the reasons demonstrated by Fukushima, among other incidents.

[flamingdem]

42. Here's a visual of the plant for all yous experts to analyze!

[CRH]

43. Analyze what? ...

They do pile their scrap iron waste a little close to the reactor, that might be a safety hazard. Other than that, seems fine to me.

[MineralMan]

44. Yes, I analyze that photo to mean that there was a

major failure at that power plant. We knew that already. It's a bad deal all around. There's no need, though, to make it more than it already is, and especially no need to exaggerate just to make it seem worse. If anything gives evidence of the risk of nuclear power generation, this incident does it. Along with Chernobyl, we should have a very clear picture of why nuclear power is not safe and cannot be safe.

[kristopher]

54. You offer no substantiation that Gundersen has exaggerated anything.

You admit you know nothing of him and that you have no idea of the key point of evidence supporting his assessment. However, you are sure that this world recognized authority on evaluation of safety issues related to nuclear reactors is intent on scaring the public with evidence that cannot be valid.

I'm sorry but I fail to see anything in the reasoning you've offered that forms a basis for dismissing Gunderson's concerns. I do see reason for dismissing your attack on his credibility, however, in pasts posts you've made where you attempt to, as you have here, stand in the crowd as if you are unbiased and then proceed to produced obviously biased, unsubstantiated opinions that lead a less informed public to beliefs that enhance the competitive position of the nuclear industry.

[jeff47]

74. How 'bout because if Gunderson was right on this

the reactor vessel would have melted? Stainless steel melts at "thousands of degrees". Yet the reactor vessels are still there.

How 'bout the zirconium alloy used to clad the fuel burns in water well below "thousands of degrees"? The degradation of this alloy by steam is where the hydrogen came from at Three Mile Island, and is the likely source for the hydrogen that exploded in this plant. "Thousands of degrees" would mean the fuel cladding would be on fire. It's not.

Then there's the fact that he's commenting on the layout of the pipes in the plant from an IR image without having ever seen the plant or even the plans for the plant. And I'm very curious about the laws of physics in his world that would cause "curved" pipes to become straight spontaneously if they get hot.

Just because you agree with an "expert's" conclusions doesn't mean his statements are accurate. An expert should be well aware that "thousands of degrees" is not possible without a much more catastrophic situation. The plant would be consumed with a raging inferno that's massively radioactive. Much like Chernobyl. That's not happening. At least for now.

Then there's the fact that he's guessing at temperature using an IR image. Measuring temperature using an IR camera is actually very difficult, because different materials have different emissivity in IR.

For those of you wanting to play along at home, first buy an IR camera. (I'd prefer you send the thousands of dollars to relief organizations, but we've got science to do!). Hang a piece of aluminum foil and a black piece of construction paper in your oven. Heat the oven to 250 and wait an hour so you're sure the paper and foil are 250 degrees. Point the IR camera at them. The paper will be very bright in IR. The foil will be nearly invisible. Yet they're both 250 degrees.

[Fledermaus]

45. Perfect, all they need to do is turn the power back on and every thing will be OK!

[flamingdem]

47. I'm sure there's a team of Ninja engineers ready to fix it right up

on site, sure.

[CabalPowered]

48. Looks like they may contract it out

http://www.babcock.com/news_and_events/2011/20110322a.html

[flamingdem]

50. Good find! Ninja engineers for hire nt

[hunter]

56. Here's another...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=716782&mesg_id=716782

It's a toxic mess, surrounded by miles of toxic mess, not all of it radioactive, not all of it from the nuclear power plants.

Building cities, nuclear power plants, chemical plants, and oil refineries in low areas near the coast is not a good idea.

[flamingdem]

64. I wonder how long they can stand there - 15 minutes max? nt

[FBaggins]

68. More like months.

The radiation levels are reported and you can see they're wearing the appropriate gear.

Where on earth do you come up with "15 minutes max"???

They wouldn't BE out there if 15 minutes was the limit of safety. They've shown that they evacuate for far smaller exposure levels than that.

[flamingdem]

71. I can't find the answer but for sure it's not months, hours at best

From NYT:

The reactor’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, said it had been able to double the number of people at the plant to 100 as a result of falling radiation levels, but that was before the sudden release of radioactive vapor. It was not immediately clear how many of the workers and soldiers at the plant might have evacuated after that.

Those remaining are being asked to make escalating — and perhaps existential — sacrifices that so far are being only implicitly acknowledged: Japan’s Health Ministry said Tuesday it was raising the legal limit on the amount of radiation to which each worker could be exposed, to 250 millisieverts from 100 millisieverts, five times the maximum exposure permitted for American nuclear plant workers.

The change means that workers can now remain on site longer, the ministry said. “It would be unthinkable to raise it further than that, considering the health of the workers,” the health minister, Yoko Komiyama, said at a news conference. There was also a suggestion on Wednesday that more workers may be brought to help save the power station.

[FBaggins]

72. The quote you cite is a week old or more.

Conditions change. There are far more than 100 people working at the site now.

Months is the correct answer. It may even be longer - as long as they continue to get out of the way if there is a steam release or other spike.



The last level I saw reported at the gate was 240 microsieverts per hour. 100 ten-hour days would get you to a dangerous (though not fatal) dose... IF you weren't wearing protective gear. But they are.