[Peace-discuss] GE-designed reactors in trouble in Japan have 23 'sisters' in US - including Clinton IL

C. G. Estabrook galliher at illinois.edu
Mon Mar 14 19:14:19 CDT 2011 

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Mon, March 14, 2011 -- 8:00 PM ET
-----
New Blast Reported at Japanese Nuclear Plant as Workers Struggle to Cool Reactor

An explosion early Tuesday morning may have damaged the inner
steel containment vessel of the No. 2 reactor at Japan's
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, leading to the wide
release of radioactive materials there and forcing the
evacuation of emergency workers, the plant's operator said.

The blast appeared to be different -- and more severe -- than
those that at two other troubled reactor at the same nuclear
complex because this one, reported to have occurred at 6:14
a.m., happened in the "pressure suppression room" in the
cooling area of the reactor, raising the possibility to
damage to the reactor's containment vessel.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?emc=na


On 3/14/11 7:00 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> "...the nuclear problems are relatively minor"!
>
> If there had been no reactors at Fukushima, the Japanese government would now 
> be burying the dead, searching for bodies, and cleaning up the debris.  
> Instead they are evacuating people in an ever-widening radius around the 
> reactors and hoping - hoping! - that the situation will be "more like Three 
> Mile Island than Chernobyl" (or worse).
>
> The only good thing to come out of this horror is a world-wide revulsion 
> against nuclear energy, which is already having a political effect in Europe.  
> People are not fools, and even the much more heavily propagandized Americans 
> will question Obama's attempt to build nuclear plants, to the benefit of his 
> wealthy patrons.
>
>
> On 3/14/11 5:37 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> My comment was not in reference to the the article you cite, but to the  
>> "mid-thirtyish Australian". Yes, he is an reactor expert well informed about 
>> the ANL fast neutron reactor project which was shut down.
>>
>> So far, the media have had little reference to people familiar with radiation 
>> and nuclear reactors. Radiation, with which we all contend all the time, has 
>> become a bogeyman. It's become facile and fashionable to knock the experts.
>>
>> As to the Brooks article, aside from his curious remarks about the short 
>> lifetime of Cs137, it was more informative than anything else I saw in a 
>> hysterical media. Compared to the disaster of the earthquake and the 
>> tsunami—the lives lost and destruction—the nuclear problems are relatively 
>> minor, although not so economically for Japan or for the nuclear industry. 
>> We'll have to wait to see how final evaluations emerge.
>>
>> The explanation of Brooks about dispersal of the Cs137 can only make sense if 
>> one considers its concentration, the amount deposited per unit area as it 
>> precipitates and its location. It's all a question of dosage. Finally, the 
>> effects of Cs137 uptake from the environment can be alleviated by treatment 
>> with potassium iodide. [See  
>> http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/cesium.html and 
>> http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/cesium.html]
>>
>> --mkb
>>
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Stuart Levy wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09:36AM -0500, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>> Maybe he knows what he's talking about, whereas on this topic you know very 
>>>> little. The Argonne project referred to was shut down for political, not 
>>>> scientific reasons. It was a research project that should have continued. 
>>>> Dommage. --mkb
>>> Mort,
>>>
>>> This guy undercuts his own credibility.  Take a look at the comments
>>>
>>>    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/#more-3970
>>>
>>> armchairpilot, on 13 March 2011 at 10:42 PM said:
>>>   [quoting Barry Brook]
>>>     The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost
>>>     gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago.
>>>
>>>   armchairpilot continues:
>>>     Isn’t the half life of the radioactive Cesium something like 30 years?
>>>     How can it be gone just a few days after the reactor shutdown?
>>>
>>> [This question is right on.  137Cs's lifetime is indeed that long.  -SL
>>> Now look at Brook's response:]
>>>
>>> Barry Brook, on 13 March 2011 at 10:47 PM said:
>>>   The cesium was in trace amounts and dispersed via the
>>>   prevailing winds over the ocean.  It then reacts immediately with
>>>   water to produce cesium hydroxide (CsOH) and is dissipated.
>>>
>>>
>>> *dissipated*?  This sounds like BP's response to the vast release of
>>> underwater oil.  If you can't see it, it isn't there.  Likewise for his
>>> dismissal of the fission products as all having few-day half lives.
>>> That may be an important consideration for estimating heat production,
>>> where short-lived isotopes might well contribute most, but it's clearly
>>> misleadingly wrong given that this article is also supposedly trying to
>>> calm worries about environmental exposure.
>>>
>>> This guy does not come across as some kind of dispassionate technical
>>> information source - he is grinding his axe while we watch.
>>>
>>>> On Mar 14, 2011, at 5:47 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The author of this site is a mid-thirtyish Australian who has been is a 
>>>>> strong advocate for nuclear power, especially the "Advanced Liquid-Metal 
>>>>> Reactor." The U.S. Department of Energy built a prototype, but canceled 
>>>>> the project in 1994, three years before completion. He is the author of 
>>>>> "Why vs Why: Nuclear Power [sic]" (2010).
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/11 12:18 AM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>>>> For those who want a more informed and detailed report on the Japanese 
>>>>>> nuclear power reactor situation, see
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/#more-3970 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and the commentary following.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --mkb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 13, 2011, at 6:59 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The General Electric-designed nuclear reactors involved in the Japanese 
>>>>>>> emergency are very similar to 23 reactors in use in the United States 
>>>>>>> [including the Clinton reactor, in] Clinton, Illinois..." It's a damn 
>>>>>>> stupid way to boil water. It just happens to be very profitable for some 
>>>>>>> people. They have to be stopped. --CGE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>>>> General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.
>>>>>>> By Bill Dedman
>>>>>>> Investigative Reporter, msnbc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The General Electric-designed nuclear reactors involved in the Japanese 
>>>>>>> emergency are very similar to 23 reactors in use in the United States, 
>>>>>>> according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission records.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The NRC database of nuclear power plants shows that 23 of the 104 
>>>>>>> nuclear plants in the U.S. are GE boiling-water reactors with GE's Mark 
>>>>>>> I systems for containing radioactivity, the same containment system used 
>>>>>>> by the reactors in trouble at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The U.S. 
>>>>>>> reactors are in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, 
>>>>>>> Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, 
>>>>>>> Pennsylvania and Vermont.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In addition, 12 reactors in the U.S. have the later Mark II or Mark III 
>>>>>>> containment system from GE. These 12 are in Illinois, Louisiana, 
>>>>>>> Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington state. See the 
>>>>>>> full list below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (General Electric is a parent company of msnbc.com through GE's 49 
>>>>>>> percent stake in NBCUniversal. NBCUniversal and Microsoft are equal 
>>>>>>> partners in msnbc.com.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Msnbc.com sent questions Saturday to GE Energy, asking whether the 
>>>>>>> Japanese reactors differed from those of the same general design used in 
>>>>>>> the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A GE spokesman, Michael Tetuan, referred all questions to the Nuclear 
>>>>>>> Energy Institute, an industry trade and lobbying group. Tetuan said GE 
>>>>>>> nuclear staff members in Wilmington, N.C., are focused on assisting GE 
>>>>>>> employees in Japan and standing by to help the Japanese authorities if 
>>>>>>> asked to help. The NEI on Sunday confirmed that the figure of 23 is 
>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, which had the 
>>>>>>> explosion on Saturday, are all GE-designed boiling-water reactors, 
>>>>>>> according to the anti-nuclear advocacy group Nuclear Information and 
>>>>>>> Resource Service. The group says that five have containment systems of 
>>>>>>> GE's Mark I design, and the sixth is of the Mark II type. They were 
>>>>>>> placed in operation between 1971 and 1979.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A fact sheet from the group contends that the Mark I design has design 
>>>>>>> problems, and that in 1972 an Atomic Energy Commission member, Dr. 
>>>>>>> Stephen Hanuaer, recommended that this type of system be discontinued.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Some modifications have been made to U.S. Mark I reactors since 1986, 
>>>>>>> although the fundamental design deficiencies remain," NIRS said. The 
>>>>>>> group has a commentary online describing what it says are hazards of 
>>>>>>> boiling-water reactors: human invervention needed to vent radioactive 
>>>>>>> steam in the case of a core meltdown, and problems with aging.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the earthquake struck Japan on Friday, the early statements by the 
>>>>>>> industry's Nuclear Industry Institute have emphasized that only six 
>>>>>>> plants in the U.S. have precisely the same generation of reactor design 
>>>>>>> (GE boiling-water reactor model 3) as the first reactor to have trouble 
>>>>>>> in Fukushima Daiichi. Problems then developed at different reactors of 
>>>>>>> GE model 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But aside from the generation of reactor design, the following 23 U.S. 
>>>>>>> plants have GE boiling-water reactors (GE models 2, 3 or 4) with the 
>>>>>>> same Mark I containment design used at Fukushima, according to the NRC's 
>>>>>>> online database:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Browns Ferry 1, Athens, Alabama, operating license since 1973, reactor 
>>>>>>> type GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Browns Ferry 2, Athens, Alabama, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Browns Ferry 3, Athens, Alabama, 1976, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Brunswick 1, Southport, North Carolina, 1976, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Brunswick 2, Southport, North Carolina, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Cooper, Brownville, Nebraska, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Dresden 2, Morris, Illinois, 1970, GE 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Dresden 3, Morris, Illinois, 1971, GE 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Duane Arnold, Palo, Iowa, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Fermi 2, Monroe, Michigan, 1985, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • FitzPatrick, Scriba, New York, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Hatch 1, Baxley, Georgia, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Hatch 2, Baxley, Georgia, 1978, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Hope Creek, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey, 1986, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Monticello, Monticello, Minnesota, 1970, GE 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Nine Mile Point 1, Scriba, New York, 1969, GE 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Oyster Creek, Forked River, New Jersey, 1969, GE 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Peach Bottom 2, Delta, Pennsylvania, 1973, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Peach Bottom 3, Delta, Pennsylvania, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Pilgrim, Plymouth, Massachusetts, 1972, GE 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Quad Cities 1, Cordova, Illinois, 1972, GE 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Quad Cities 2, Moline, Illinois, 1972, GE 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vermont, 1972, GE 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And these 12 newer GE boiling-water reactors have a Mark II or Mark III 
>>>>>>> design:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Clinton, Clinton, Illinois, 1987, GE 6, Mark III.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington, 1984, GE 5, Mark II.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Grand Gulf, Port Gibson, Mississippi, 1984, GE 6, Mark III.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • LaSalle 1, Marseilles, Illinois, 1982, GE 5, Mark II.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • LaSalle 2, Marseilles, Illinois, 1983, GE 5, Mark II.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Limerick 1, Limerick, Pennsylvania, 1985, GE 4, Mark II.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Limerick 2, Limerick, Pennsylvania, 1989, GE 4, Mark II.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Nine Mile Point 2, Scriba, New York, 1987, GE 5, Mark II.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Perry, Perry, Ohio, 1986, GE 6, Mark III.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • River Bend, St. Francisville, Louisiana, 1985, GE 6, Mark III.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Susquehanna 1, Salem Township, Pennsylvania, 1982, GE 4, Mark II.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Susquehanna 2, Salem Township, Pennsylvania, 1984, GE 4, Mark II.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other resources:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Details on each U.S. reactor are in the NRC list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The NRC has an explainer on boiling-water reactors and the various GE 
>>>>>>> containment designs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's an earthquake hazard map of the lower 48 United States from the 
>>>>>>> U.S. Geological Survey showing the areas with the greatest risks. More 
>>>>>>> detailed state-by-state maps from the USGS are here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scientific American looks at the technical situation facing the 
>>>>>>> engineers in Japan. And The Wall Street Journal describes how this 
>>>>>>> emergency calls into question the redundancies that nuclear plant 
>>>>>>> designers rely on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Wall Street Journal reported that Tokyo Electric tested the 
>>>>>>> Fukushima plant to withstand an earthquake less severe than the one that 
>>>>>>> struck last week:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Separately, company documents show that Tokyo Electric tested the 
>>>>>>> Fukushima plant to withstand a maximum seismic jolt lower than Friday's 
>>>>>>> 8.9 earthquake. Tepco's last safety test of nuclear power plant Number 
>>>>>>> 1—one that is currently in danger of meltdown—was done at a seismic 
>>>>>>> magnitude the company considered the highest possible, but in fact 
>>>>>>> turned out to be lower than Friday's quake. The information comes from 
>>>>>>> the company's "Fukushima No. 1 and No. 2 Updated Safety Measures" 
>>>>>>> documents written in Japanese in 2010 and 2009. The documents were 
>>>>>>> reviewed by Dow Jones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The company said in the documents that 7.9 was the highest magnitude for 
>>>>>>> which they tested the safety for their No. 1 and No. 2 nuclear power 
>>>>>>> plants in Fukushima.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simultaneous seismic activity along the three tectonic plates in the sea 
>>>>>>> east of the plants—the epicenter of Friday's quake—wouldn't surpass 7.9, 
>>>>>>> according to the company's presentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The company based its models partly on previous seismic activity in the 
>>>>>>> area, including a 7.0 earthquake in May 1938 and two simultaneous 
>>>>>>> earthquakes of 7.3 and 7.5 on November 5 of the same year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-us 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list