US regulator says Westinghouse AP1000 reactor impact study is inadequate

[kristopher]

US regulator says Westinghouse AP1000 reactor impact study is inadequate

Published: Nov 10, 2010
Westinghouse has been told to resubmit its assessment of aircraft impact on the AP1000 reactor.

According to World Nuclear News, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said that documents put to it in order to demonstrate a 2009 requirement did not include 'realistic' analyses and that this amounted to a violation of requirements that Westinghouse must explain and rectify...

Two more paragraphs at: http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/5542564196/articles/powergenworldwide/nuclear/reactors/2010/11/us-regulator_says.html

Coincidentally I posted this last night. Since Thomas’ paper just came out, I’m guessing the NRC was asleep at the switch; truly confidence inspiring.

"The three short-listed reactors were the EPR, a Russian design and a Boiling Water Reactor design also offered by Areva NP. TVO was widely reported to be looking for a ‘turnkey’ (fixed price) contract. Westinghouse chose not to bid overtly on the grounds that a turnkey offer would not be profitable.12 However, there were also claims by Areva that Westinghouse’s AP1000 would not have met the requirements on aircraft protection because its containment was not strong enough.13 The AP1000 does not have a core-catcher and the head of STUK, Jukka Laaksonen has stated that on these grounds, the AP1000 would not have been acceptable in Finland.14"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=264062&mesg_id=264615

You can download the very readable Thomas report at: http://216.250.243.12/The%20EPR%20in%20crisis%203-11-10.pdf

[Nederland]

1. Westinghouse did an impact study?

I'm confused because I think a study that looks at what would happen if large passenger jet hit a nuclear reactor qualifies as a "low probability/high consequence" event. The fact that Westinghouse produced such a study seems to contradict your earlier assertion that:

The nuclear industry routinely pretends that low probability/high consequence risk evaluation has no place in the planning process.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=262189#263472

Apparently Westinghouse did the impact study because it is required to do so by law, just like I said in my reply...


:rofl:

[kristopher]

2. I just noted in another thread how you like to use false logic - I forgot outright falsehoods.

I was very clear about what specific category of risk analysis I was referring to. Your attempt to misrepresent the facts is unethical and despicable. I encourage everyone to read the link you provided.

Edited to add: Let's get this cleared up right now. Are you saying that there *is not* an area of high consequence/low probability risk assessment where statistical analysis is inadequate?

If you deny that sector exists I will point you back to the writings on Black Swan events and expect you to defend your assertion.

If you accept it, then it is required of you that you explain how risk assessment for the nuclear power industry takes that sector of risk which is blind to statistics into consideration during the planning process.

[GliderGuider]

3. Still trying to weasel out of getting pwned?

You've been toasted on this issue before. Don't push your luck. Got your numbers for coal deaths per TWh ready yet?

[kristopher]

7. I love internet discussions where the actual dialog is clearly recorded!!!

No need to take the word of anyone. I again encourage everyone to follow the link nneder provided and read the discussion themselves.

Now, since you seem to agree with nneder, why don't you respond with something of substance for a change and explain how Black Swan high consequence/low probability events are part of the review and planning process?

I was very clear about what specific category of risk analysis I was referring to. Your attempt to misrepresent the facts is unethical and despicable. I encourage everyone to read the link you provided.

Edited to add: Let's get this cleared up right now. Are you saying that there *is not* an area of high consequence/low probability risk assessment where statistical analysis is inadequate?

If you deny that sector exists I will point you back to the writings on Black Swan events and expect you to defend your assertion.

If you accept it, then it is required of you that you explain how risk assessment for the nuclear power industry takes that sector of risk which is blind to statistics into consideration during the planning process.

[Nederland]

8. I completely agree

I hope people follow the link I provided and read the discussion for themselves. The more people that see how you got pwned and your pathetic attempt to move the goalposts the better.

[kristopher]

9. While they're at it let's encourage them to also visit...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=245092

I always feel like I need to wash my hands and wipe down my keyboard after an exchange with you as it's a lot like having goo from a slug on my hands.

[Nederland]

10. Again, I completely agree

Amazing, twice in a single thread! Will this start a trend? A new age?

Seriously, by all means, keep those links coming. I freely admit that there are threads that I'm embarrassed by--threads where I was hopelessly wrong but didn't realize it until I had dug a very deep hole for myself (in particular there was one exchange I had with Josh a while back that comes to mind...). However, you haven't come up with any of those yet, so by all means, keep them coming.

[kristopher]

11. We're still waiting even after your attempted diversion

I was very clear about what specific category of risk analysis I was referring to. Your attempt to misrepresent the facts is unethical and despicable. I encourage everyone to read the link you provided.

Edited to add: Let's get this cleared up right now. Are you saying that there *is not* an area of high consequence/low probability risk assessment where statistical analysis is inadequate?

If you deny that sector exists I will point you back to the writings on Black Swan events and expect you to defend your assertion.

If you accept it, then it is required of you that you explain how risk assessment for the nuclear power industry takes that sector of risk which is blind to statistics into consideration during the planning process.

[bananas]

4. Good.

K&r but still at zero, thanks to the Republican war on science.

[bananas]

5. Another victory for the reality-based community.

The nuclear industry analysis was not 'realistic', as stated in the article.
You just can't trust the nuclear industry - their analyses are not realistic.

[madokie]

6. The nuclear power industry has never been honest with us

and I doubt they ever will. The old canard that we wouldn't understand is bogus today just as it was years ago. All things has risk and some more so than others but when you start talking about the risk that comes with nuclear energy I'm not willing to roll over and take that lying down. I didn't like the risk of flying when I was required to while in the service and I haven't flown since and the risk I take when I get in an automobile is to me and and a few others not a whole city or region so that argument that we're taking a risk every time we get in our automobiles and using that as a comparison doesn't wash with me either. I'm taking a risk just sitting here at my computer in front of a window fronting a road where my next door neighbor is a druggie and dope peddler with all kinds of creatures coming and going but that doesn't compare with the risk of a nuclear power plant being next door. The thing with nuclear power plants being next door means they can be miles away not just a few feet from me as me sitting here next to a road with a high probability of someone out of their minds on drugs is driving by and taking a pot shot at my window is.

What gets me is when you start reading pro-nukies talking about the next gen nuclear plants they almost always admit that the present ones has problems but if they are not talking about the next gen nuke plants they'll argue until they're blue in the face that nuclear energy is perfectly safe. Hell there is those who will argue that there's not been any deaths due to nuclear energy but we all know that to be bullshit but that doesn't make those who will use that argument not to use it anyway, further cutting into their credibility. I guess hoping those of us who pay attention won't catch it or something. Living in denial and loose with the truth is the way of the nuclear power industry and has been since the get go.