EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 11/08/14 12:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.


I hope all the pillocks in the government are duly crapping their pants...

In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes

This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity

Just as well it didn't happen during winter.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 11/08/14 12:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.


I hope all the pillocks in the government are duly crapping their pants...

That would be for selling off the generation of electricity so they no
longer control it?

--
*Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/08/2014 12:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes

This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity

Just as well it didn't happen during winter.


We don't know that the fault will be fixable before winter, yet...

On 11/08/14 12:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.

No it hasnt.

That is a gross distoirtion

http://newsroom.edfenergy.com/News-R...pdate-2db.aspx

Basically they found an issue in routine maintenance with one boiler
spine. Nothing to do with the reactors themselves, and are shutting the
rest down as a precaution so they can inspect them.

Because shutting them down now when electricity prices are low is better
than in the winter.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 11/08/14 12:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes

This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity

Just as well it didn't happen during winter.

It is happening now BECAUSE its is not winter.

Read the press release.
And between the lines.

"Although routine inspections of other boiler spines have not previously
indicated any similar defects EDF Energy has taken the conservative
decision to shut down Heysham 1 Reactor 2 and Hartlepool Reactors 1 and
2 that are of similar design over the next few days to carry out further
inspections in order to satisfy itself and the Regulator that the
reactors can be safely returned to service. Until the results of the
further inspections are known it is not possible to advise exact return
to service dates for these four reactors, however, an initial estimate
is that these investigations will take around eight weeks. EDF Energys
other nuclear power stations are not affected by this issue as they are
of a different design."

http://newsroom.edfenergy.com/News-R...pdate-2db.aspx

I.e. an issue found with a boiler. During routine maintenance designed
to spot exactly this sort of thing. EDF sensibly takes the decision to
inspect all boilers of the same type now, when power demand is
exceptionally low (less than 25GW last night as it happens).

A total non story except they happen to be nuclear power stations and
therefore guaranteed media coverage by ****s .

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 11/08/14 13:31, Lee wrote:
On 11/08/2014 12:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes

This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity

Just as well it didn't happen during winter.


We don't know that the fault will be fixable before winter, yet...

sigh. We don't know that an asteroid won't smash into harry's solar
panels either.

And take out half of ****land.

Current best estimate is 8 weeks.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:51:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

"Although routine inspections of other boiler spines have not previously
indicated any similar defects EDF Energy has taken the conservative
decision to shut down Heysham 1 Reactor 2 and Hartlepool Reactors 1 and
2 that are of similar design over the next few days to carry out further
inspections in order to satisfy itself and the Regulator that the
reactors can be safely returned to service. Until the results of the
further inspections are known it is not possible to advise exact return
to service dates for these four reactors, however, an initial estimate
is that these investigations will take around eight weeks. EDF Energy's
other nuclear power stations are not affected by this issue as they are
of a different design."

http://newsroom.edfenergy.com/News-R...Heysham-1-and-
Hartlepool-operational-update-2db.aspx

I.e. an issue found with a boiler. During routine maintenance designed
to spot exactly this sort of thing. EDF sensibly takes the decision to
inspect all boilers of the same type now, when power demand is
exceptionally low (less than 25GW last night as it happens).

A total non story except they happen to be nuclear power stations and
therefore guaranteed media coverage by ****s .

And they don't help themselves by using the word "reactor" when they
mean "boiler".

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That would be for selling off the generation of electricity so they no
longer control it?

You mean,

You've got your crystal ball out again?

had they not been sold off, then the Govt could decree that
there was actually no fault with the reactors, just like that?

Send your crystal ball back for a refund. It doesn't work.

I mean,
I know they can magic money into existence, but fixing things that
easily, gosh!

Wish I could understand your 'logic'.

Is that how the NHS works then - they just wave a magic wand over your
broken leg - and hey presto!?

Even more so with that.

--
*If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/08/2014 13:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/14 13:31, Lee wrote:
On 11/08/2014 12:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes

This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity

Just as well it didn't happen during winter.


We don't know that the fault will be fixable before winter, yet...

sigh. We don't know that an asteroid won't smash into harry's solar
panels either.

And take out half of ****land.

Current best estimate is 8 weeks.


If I've read the PR correctly, that's only for the inspection to assess
whether the conditions which caused the defect in the faulty unit exist
in the other units?
Presumably if the same conditions are found that's when things get
interesting?

On 11/08/2014 13:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A total non story except they happen to be nuclear power stations and
therefore guaranteed media coverage by ****s .


Fair enough point, although any major loss of generating capacity at the
moment, from any type of plant, is still a valid story for those who may
care whether the lights stay on this winter

On 11/08/14 15:20, Lee wrote:
On 11/08/2014 13:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/14 13:31, Lee wrote:
On 11/08/2014 12:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes

This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity

Just as well it didn't happen during winter.


We don't know that the fault will be fixable before winter, yet...

sigh. We don't know that an asteroid won't smash into harry's solar
panels either.

And take out half of ****land.

Current best estimate is 8 weeks.


If I've read the PR correctly, that's only for the inspection to assess
whether the conditions which caused the defect in the faulty unit exist
in the other units?
Presumably if the same conditions are found that's when things get
interesting?

Possibly.

Post inspection they will take a view on whether the boilers need to be
fixed, are worth fixing, or whether to simply derate the reactors by 25%
given that they are near the end of their useful life.

In all cases there is probably a way to isolate the boilers and restart
the reactors while decisions are made.

At least one reactor is run sub-max power for boiler related issues already.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 11/08/14 15:26, Lee wrote:
On 11/08/2014 13:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A total non story except they happen to be nuclear power stations and
therefore guaranteed media coverage by ****s .


Fair enough point, although any major loss of generating capacity at the
moment, from any type of plant, is still a valid story for those who may
care whether the lights stay on this winter

As I said, the planned outages are generally when peak demand isn't in
the offing. EDF tries to have all reactors up for DEC-MAR as that is
when they are most profitable.

Likewise coal boilers are down and out at the moment as, given only
limited hours to run, it pays to run them when the prices are highest.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Oh dear, did someone leave their sandwiches in a control rod mechanism
again...
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

I wonder how serious, as surely if they could it might make sense to stagger
the repairs over a few months. How long has the fault been there?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 11/08/14 12:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.


I hope all the pillocks in the government are duly crapping their
pants...

That would be for selling off the generation of electricity so they no
longer control it?

--
*Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I wonder how serious, as surely if they could it might make sense to
stagger the repairs over a few months. How long has the fault been
there?

Surely it would make more sense to get them all up and running again in
time for peak demand - ie winter when few are on holiday, etc?

--
*Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/08/2014 14:28, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:51:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

"Although routine inspections of other boiler spines have not previously
indicated any similar defects EDF Energy has taken the conservative
decision to shut down Heysham 1 Reactor 2 and Hartlepool Reactors 1 and
2 that are of similar design over the next few days to carry out further
inspections in order to satisfy itself and the Regulator that the
reactors can be safely returned to service. Until the results of the
further inspections are known it is not possible to advise exact return
to service dates for these four reactors, however, an initial estimate
is that these investigations will take around eight weeks. EDF Energy's
other nuclear power stations are not affected by this issue as they are
of a different design."

http://newsroom.edfenergy.com/News-R...Heysham-1-and-
Hartlepool-operational-update-2db.aspx

I.e. an issue found with a boiler. During routine maintenance designed
to spot exactly this sort of thing. EDF sensibly takes the decision to
inspect all boilers of the same type now, when power demand is
exceptionally low (less than 25GW last night as it happens).

A total non story except they happen to be nuclear power stations and
therefore guaranteed media coverage by ****s .

And they don't help themselves by using the word "reactor" when they
mean "boiler".

No, it is four reactors: two stations, each of which have two reactors.
Each reactor has several boilers. Interestingly, the problem is
associated with yet another innovative bit of British design. (Some
might say too innovative). The boilers were designed to be replaceable
(in case of long term problems with corrosion, wear, fatigue, etc). So
all of the tubing is suspended from a forged "spine" and, as I
understand it, the problem is with possible defects found during routine
inspection of the "spines". A few years ago, the "closure units", (i.e.
the big plugs that seal the pressure vessel and carry the feedwater in,
and the steam out) and are post-stressed concrete, had expensive
problems with the reinforcment tendons.

On 11/08/2014 12:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.

They shut Teesside down a couple of years ago now and its all been
mothballed till whenever.

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

Current best estimate is 8 weeks.

That was just to assess the problem, not the time to a fix.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

In all cases there is probably a way to isolate the boilers and restart
the reactors while decisions are made.

What's the point in restarting, when the boilers are needed to run the
turbines?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

Read the press release.
And between the lines.

You need to take your own advice:

however, an initial estimate
is that these investigations will take around eight weeks.

guaranteed media coverage by ****s .

and comment on usenet by people that can't read?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo o.uk,
Dave Liquorice escribió:

And they don't help themselves by using the word "reactor" when they
mean "boiler".

No. The reactor generates the heat that boils the water in the, um,
boilers to spin the turbines that drive the generators that produce the
power.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/08/14 12:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes

This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity

Just as well it didn't happen during winter.

It is happening now BECAUSE its is not winter.

Read the press release.
And between the lines.

"Although routine inspections of other boiler spines have not previously
indicated any similar defects EDF Energy has taken the conservative
decision to shut down Heysham 1 Reactor 2 and Hartlepool Reactors 1 and 2
that are of similar design over the next few days to carry out further
inspections in order to satisfy itself and the Regulator that the reactors
can be safely returned to service. Until the results of the further
inspections are known it is not possible to advise exact return to service
dates for these four reactors, however, an initial estimate is that these
investigations will take around eight weeks. EDF Energy's other nuclear
power stations are not affected by this issue as they are of a different
design."

http://newsroom.edfenergy.com/News-R...pdate-2db.aspx

I.e. an issue found with a boiler. During routine maintenance designed to
spot exactly this sort of thing. EDF sensibly takes the decision to
inspect all boilers of the same type now, when power demand is
exceptionally low (less than 25GW last night as it happens).

A total non story except they happen to be nuclear power stations and
therefore guaranteed media coverage by ****s .

+1

On 11/08/14 13:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 11/08/14 12:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.


I hope all the pillocks in the government are duly crapping their pants...

That would be for selling off the generation of electricity so they no
longer control it?


They'll still get the ire of the electorate if the lights go out - and
they know it...

On 11/08/2014 13:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 11/08/14 12:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.

I hope all the pillocks in the government are duly crapping their
pants...

That would be for selling off the generation of electricity so they no
longer control it?

You mean, had they not been sold off, then the Govt could decree that
there was actually no fault with the reactors, just like that? I mean,
I know they can magic money into existence, but fixing things that
easily, gosh!

Is that how the NHS works then - they just wave a magic wand over your
broken leg - and hey presto!?

Yup its not a broken leg, its a fully working leg with alignment and
"comfort" issues.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 11/08/2014 14:28, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:51:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
A total non story except they happen to be nuclear power stations and
therefore guaranteed media coverage by ****s .

And they don't help themselves by using the word "reactor" when they
mean "boiler".

It could have been worse. It could have been the same weld problem they
had on some of their French reactor containment vessels in 2010.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 11/08/2014 23:07, John Williamson wrote:
On 11/08/2014 14:28, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:51:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
A total non story except they happen to be nuclear power stations and
therefore guaranteed media coverage by ****s .

And they don't help themselves by using the word "reactor" when they
mean "boiler".

It could have been worse. It could have been the same weld problem they
had on some of their French reactor containment vessels in 2010.

The French went for much more replication than we did so, not
surprisingly, "type faults" can happen (but rarely). However we have
never had more than two sites nominally the same. So we've had a huge
range of very different faults, having the expertise dispersed over so
much different plant.

On 11/08/14 20:03, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

Current best estimate is 8 weeks.

That was just to assess the problem, not the time to a fix.


To asseess that there wasn't a problem



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 11/08/14 20:04, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

In all cases there is probably a way to isolate the boilers and restart
the reactors while decisions are made.

What's the point in restarting, when the boilers are needed to run the
turbines?

because there are more boilers than reactors.


It can restart without ALL its boilers


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:46:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Basically they found an issue in routine maintenance with one boiler
spine. Nothing to do with the reactors themselves, and are shutting the
rest down as a precaution so they can inspect them.

If a problem is found them they can operate at reduced output with a single
boiler out of service. It has happened before at one or more of the AGR sites,
but doing so takes some time to remove the boiler, blank it off (gas, steam and
water circuits) and possibly shuffle fuel around the core.

--

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:37:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Post inspection they will take a view on whether the boilers need to be
fixed, are worth fixing, or whether to simply derate the reactors by 25%
given that they are near the end of their useful life.

There are considered to have around another 10 years of operational life left in
them, or about 25% given their first generation date of 1983/84

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-24824816

Applies to both sites as they 'near identical'

--

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:04:30 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

In all cases there is probably a way to isolate the boilers and restart
the reactors while decisions are made.

What's the point in restarting, when the boilers are needed to run the
turbines?

There are eight boilers per reactor arranged similar to the finger holes on a
dial telephone around the core. The reactors are capable of running with one
removed and this has happened in the past


--

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:32:15 +0100, Bob H wrote:

On 11/08/2014 12:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
EDF has found a fault during routine inspection which requires 4 of
its nuclear reactors to be closed down. The closedown will take a
few days. They hope to have them back online in October. This is a
quarter of EDF's capacity.

They shut Teesside down a couple of years ago now and its all been
mothballed till whenever.

More than three years ago and it was fuelled by gas. While Hartlepool Nuclear
Power station is sort of located on Teesside it is not Teesside Power Station!

Surprised it is still standing given the demand for scrap in China

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/busines...-owner-6138248

Given the current ownership it is not even mentioned by GDF Suez on their
website.

http://www.gdfsuez-ukeurope.com/our-...nt-assets.aspx


--

En el artículo , The Other
Mike escribió:

There are eight boilers per reactor arranged similar to the finger holes on a
dial telephone around the core.

So if one boiler spine is faulty, the other seven must be suspect.
That's why they have closed the entire reactor down.

The reactors are capable of running with one
removed and this has happened in the past

See above.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:28:22 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo , The Other
Mike escribió:

There are eight boilers per reactor arranged similar to the finger holes on a
dial telephone around the core.

So if one boiler spine is faulty, the other seven must be suspect.
That's why they have closed the entire reactor down.

That was my point expressed in other posts. The designs of those two sites *in
their entirety* are as close as makes no difference. Could come to nothing,
but given similar operating hours, the severity / distribution of any defects
and capabilities to effect a number of parallel repairs or even replacements it
could quite easily lead to the loss of up to 2.3GW of generation on a temporary
or extended basis.

Also despite the headlines Reactor 2 at Heysham 1 is at this point still
generating albeit with reducing load before being shut down for the boiler
inspection.


--

On 12/08/14 22:50, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:28:22 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artÃ*culo , The Other
Mike escribió:

There are eight boilers per reactor arranged similar to the finger holes on a
dial telephone around the core.

So if one boiler spine is faulty, the other seven must be suspect.
That's why they have closed the entire reactor down.

That was my point expressed in other posts. The designs of those two sites *in
their entirety* are as close as makes no difference. Could come to nothing,
but given similar operating hours, the severity / distribution of any defects
and capabilities to effect a number of parallel repairs or even replacements it
could quite easily lead to the loss of up to 2.3GW of generation on a temporary
or extended basis.

OTOH it could be that one spine was made with substandard materials or
was under a leak for years


Also despite the headlines Reactor 2 at Heysham 1 is at this point still
generating albeit with reducing load before being shut down for the boiler
inspection.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article , The Other Mike
writes

Could come to nothing,
but given similar operating hours, the severity / distribution of any defects
and capabilities to effect a number of parallel repairs or even replacements it
could quite easily lead to the loss of up to 2.3GW of generation on a temporary
or extended basis.

One report I read (I can try and find the link again if needed) stated
that the entire weight of the boiler is borne by the spine, so
repair/replacement may not be straightforward.

I have a feeling these reactors may be out of service for quite some
time, if not condemned altogether.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 13/08/14 09:14, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , The Other Mike
writes

Could come to nothing,
but given similar operating hours, the severity / distribution of any defects
and capabilities to effect a number of parallel repairs or even replacements it
could quite easily lead to the loss of up to 2.3GW of generation on a temporary
or extended basis.

One report I read (I can try and find the link again if needed) stated
that the entire weight of the boiler is borne by the spine, so
repair/replacement may not be straightforward.

I have a feeling these reactors may be out of service for quite some
time, if not condemned altogether.


Rubbish. Whole boiler and pipe assembly could be easily replaced if its
economic.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:14:24 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , The Other Mike
writes

Could come to nothing,
but given similar operating hours, the severity / distribution of any defects
and capabilities to effect a number of parallel repairs or even replacements it
could quite easily lead to the loss of up to 2.3GW of generation on a temporary
or extended basis.

One report I read (I can try and find the link again if needed) stated
that the entire weight of the boiler is borne by the spine, so
repair/replacement may not be straightforward.

I have a feeling these reactors may be out of service for quite some
time, if not condemned altogether.

The boilers are designed to be removed from the concrete pressure / containment
vessel and have been in the past. A replacement can be dropped in and a small
number of spares, or more likely by now repaired boilers exist. But, being of
identical design these may also have the same defects.

Replacing a number of them and repairing or manufacturing replacements could be
an issue that restricts or possibly removes their ability to generate. Finding
out now is certainly a little better than finding out in late February when the
wind stops blowing again, the sun doesn't shine and the *******s at Greenpeace
turn the lights on in their vast offices and expect them to work.

What is significant, and maybe overlooked in the reports in the usual rags is
this is a *repeat* inspection, all these reactors having being taken offline for
similar checks in the past 12 months and they were then returned to service.
This revisit for another inspection possibly indicates that the previous checks
may have missed something significant.

But there are *lots* of unknowns

--