by kbman for 2011 Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Information and Assistance

Share42  2

(But were afraid you might need to ask.)

Source:

Understanding events in Japan requires a fairly in depth understanding of the structures that hold the nuclear reactor and associated equipment.  Looking at the pictures of the damaged reactor buildings is certainly shocking.  And without an understanding of the details of how those buildings are designed and constructed it is easy to believe that the buildings and everything in them have been essentially destroyed, a belief I do not share.  In this diary I will present the various layers of a nuclear containment system using the specific design of the Mark I as a model, and then review the status of each of the buildings in light of this information.

By way of qualifications, my training is in physics in which I have a bachelor’s degree.  I also worked for five years at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey.  Like the Fukushima plants, Oyster Creek is a GE BWR-I with a Mark I containment.  It has a power rating roughly 1/3 higher than Fukushima Daiichi 1.  I worked on a number of projects while there including managing the computer system used by the core engineering group to manage the reactor core and fuel usage.  I also took courses in both generic nuclear power operations and also the specific operations and systems at Oyster Creek.  And relative to this specific diary, I developed software used by the plant to perform required federal testing of the integrity of the primary containment structure.  In the process I learned a great deal about the Mark I containment, the basis for its design and the pressures it was designed to hold.  I was also a member of the plant’s emergency response team and would have been one of those responding to an incident such as this.

I am also one of those 99th percentile bastards who screwed up the grading curve from time to time … sorry about that.  I understand the distinction between theory and fact, between what is known and what is conclusion.  I will make every effort to keep these distinctions clear in what I present.  I am also very aware that I am biased.  It has nothing to do with my employment as I have not worked in the industry in over 25 years.  I simply believe that nuclear is needed if we are to stop burning fossil fuels.  I don’t believe that 40 year old BWRs running on 50 year old technology are the answer.  I believe they should be phased out as soon as practical, and watched like a hawk in the meantime.  But there are far safer technologies available which I believe should be used to wean ourselves from carbon belching coal and oil plants.

(more…)