- #596
zapperzero
- 1,045
- 2
Very disappointing. They continue to misunderestimate radiolysis as a source of hydrogen for the unit 4 explosion, there is absolutely no discussion of steam radiolysys at all, no discussion of the temperature of water in SFP4, absolutely no discussion of reflected shockwaves as a mechanism for deflagration/detonation transition which would lower the required amount of hydrogen, nothing but a reiteration of the SGTS argument.
Plus, of course, weasel wording like this:
Plus, of course, weasel wording like this:
Among the issues above, the NRA have selected and analyzed Issues (2) to (4) and (6), and
then compiled the results in this report. As for Issue (1), "very few of the seismic back checks
against the design basis earthquake ground motions and anti-seismic reinforcement works had been done." is true. By the reason of this fact, however, the NRA cannot say "It is thought that the
earthquake ground motion from the earthquake was strong enough to cause damage to some key
safety facilities." It is valid to say "there is possibility that the earthquake ground motion from the
earthquake might cause damage to some key safety facilities." Accordingly, in this report, the NRA
decided to analyze only Issues (2) to (4) and (6), which addressed
equipment damages.