posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:41 AM
The problem as far as I can see, is that the design basis for the plant has been vastly exceeded. The plant was not
designed for this. Clearly,
it should of been, else not located there at all. Since GE were clearly not told to build the reactor to survive the event, then perhaps the blame
lies with those who decided to locate the plant there or those who devised the earthquake and tsunami requirements. With that said, the containment on
mark-1 Boiling Water Reactors has known to be rather weak, and I've seen some people criticize the location of the spent fuel pool. So yes, maybe
blame lies with GE.
Are you sure about that? I read the plants were built to withstand a 7.0, though I'm not 100% sure if that source was right, but I'm 100% sure
that's what it said. In either case, the plant was underdesigned for the earthquake, and was also underdesigned for the height of the
Richter magnitude scale just assigns an amount of energy that was released during an earthquake. The actual amount of shaking depends on how far away
from the epicenter the plant was and the depth of the quake. The plant was designed for an horizontal acceleration of 600 gal or 0.6 times the force
of gravity. The horizontal shaking at the plant was 507 gal
my belief that the plant was not damaged by the earthquake, but rather the tsunami which was much
bigger than they had anticipated (10 meters
versus 6 meters if I recall correctly), flooded all the diesel generators, and destroyed the fuel supply.
Remember, nuclear plants are designed to handle design basis accidents. The Design Basis Accident (DBA) for a nuclear power plant is the most severe
possible single accident that the designers of the plant and the regulatory authorities could reasonably expect. If the DBA is exceeded then no
guarantees can be made about the safety.
edit on 19/3/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)