To:Monday, March 1A, 2011 9:23 AM
Cc:oyne, Kevin; Kuritzky, AlanSancaktar, Selim; Demoss, Gary; Ferrante, Fernando; Mitman, Jeffrey
Subject:In case somebody asks …..
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
IN SPAR all hazards models, we explicitly model the CDF phase of a seismic event sequence like the one happened to Fukushima 1.
In fact, we have the model for a similar GE 3 domestic plant, Monticello.
- March 14th, 2011 – Looks like RCIC at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 has failed. (enformable.com)
- March 15th, 2011 – Congressional Research Service – Fukushima Nuclear Crisis (enformable.com)
- March 30th, 2011 – Now that you’ve returned from Japan, would you meet with us? (enformable.com)
- March 11th, 2011 – NRC Understood that Fukushima Event would ‘Bring a lot more importance to GI-199′ – Despite later criticizing outside analysis of potential risk (enformable.com)
- March 12th, 2011 UPDATE on Fukushima Daiichi – 15:30 telecon – NRC unsuccessful so far in lead role (enformable.com)
- April 2011 – Risk versus Concern – Public Health Messaging of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Incident (enformable.com)
- March 25th, 2011 – Can we predict a tsunami wave height? – Are the models valid? (enformable.com)
- Important – Keep language professional, objective, avoid use of extreme opinion,careless hyperbole (enformable.com)
- April 4th, 2011 – station blackout and other malfunctions/failures from the earthquake, possibly even something close to a design basis accident? (enformable.com)