Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

In summary: RCIC consists of a series of pumps, valves, and manifolds that allow coolant to be circulated around the reactor pressure vessel in the event of a loss of the main feedwater supply.In summary, the earthquake and tsunami may have caused a loss of coolant at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP, which could lead to a meltdown. The system for cooling the reactor core is designed to kick in in the event of a loss of feedwater, and fortunately this appears not to have happened yet.
  • #2,801
WhoWee said:
Is it possible at any point to blow a powdered alloy (or perhaps a multi-staged application) onto the damaged cladding that might coat and repair the damage - at least temporarily - then repeat the process?
As far as I know, that would not work, partly because the fuel is supposed to be underwater, there is no way to ensure uniform or appropriate distribution, and there is no satisfactory binder.

They could conceivable dump a bunch of resin powder or beads in the pool. Normally, the coolant or condensate is 'polished' in a filter demineralizer that is a basically a huge filter with a resin coating - much like in principle a 'green sand' filter.

There are two groups of fuel to be concerned about, the fuel in the SFPs and the fuel in the core. If any fuel is damaged, it will be a radiological risk.

Reactor personnel have to deal with failed fuel on occasion (although there has been a program in place for over a decade to drive failure rates to zero). Normally, it's one or a few assemblies with typically 1 failed fuel rod. We maybe looking at 100s or thousands of failed rods, and that's very complicated from a radiological standpoint. If the tie rods are failed, then special tooling will be required to fish the damaged fuel out of the core. In fact, special baskets may be necessary in order to remove damaged fuel.

Hopefully, there are some fuel assemblies in the core which are intact - basically the low power assemblies at the periphery of the core, or the low burnup fuel.

I'd surely like to know the state of the fuel in the SFPs of Units 1-4, particularly unit 4. I suspect 4 has the most damaged fuel, and I'm not sure of the others.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2,803
PietKuip said:
There is also a metastable isomer of this isotope, see http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/nucleardata/toi/nuclide.asp?iZA=520429

It has a half-life of 33.6 days, and most of it (63 %) decays to the ground state by emitting a gamma. So the ground state is expected to be in the spectra. In steady state ("equilibrium"), it should be in the data with 63 % of the activity of the metastable isomer.

Its presence does not prove any recent criticality. It does not even point to recent criticality.

Really looks like Gunderson should keep his gob shut.

If CL-38 detection was real then that would be the 'smoking gun'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,804
Cause of Fukushima Unit 4 damage

It is reported that the cause of the unit 4 building damage was a H2 explosion caused by overheating of the discharged fuel in the U4 spent fuel pool. To the best of my knowledge, there is no photgraphic evidence of the explosion. Something that has troubled me since the first pictures of the Unit 4 damage on 16March, was whether there actually was a loss of inventory in the U4 spent fuel pool. Attached is a markup of the first photograph that was released on 16 March showing the U4 buiding damage. One can find the photo on Reuters site. This photo was taken before any water injection/spray in Unit 4. Perhaps, I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like there was still significant water in the fuel pool on March 16. Anyone have an alternative speculation?
 

Attachments

  • Unit4_Crop_jpg_1257768cl-8.pdf
    53.5 KB · Views: 303
  • #2,805
83729780 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/world/asia/05japan.html?_r=1&hp

runoff flooding the turbine buildings of 5 and 6? Implies that an entire swath parallel to the ocean is flooded. 5 and 6 are quite far from 1-4

[PLAIN]http://www.visa2tour.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/nuclear-power-plant-japan-satellite-images-damage-overal.jpg[/QUOTE]


Don't forget, they did all get hit by a series of very large waves.

(I don't know if water in the basements of 5 and 6 necessarily came all the way over from runoff from 3 and 4.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,806


michael200 said:
It is reported that the cause of the unit 4 building damage was a H2 explosion caused by overheating of the discharged fuel in the U4 spent fuel pool. To the best of my knowledge, there is no photgraphic evidence of the explosion. Something that has troubled me since the first pictures of the Unit 4 damage on 16March, was whether there actually was a loss of inventory in the U4 spent fuel pool. Attached is a markup of the first photograph that was released on 16 March showing the U4 buiding damage. One can find the photo on Reuters site. This photo was taken before any water injection/spray in Unit 4. Perhaps, I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like there was still significant water in the fuel pool on March 16. Anyone have an alternative speculation?

@michael200

Compare your image to this:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/FHM.jpg

The "reflection" seems dubious. More likely, you are seeing more of the substructure below the operator's platform than a reflection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,807


Your picture is of a different refueling bridge design.
 
  • #2,808
Jorge Stolfi said:
Whether the lid is in place or not: The explosion on #3 blasted away the concrete columns on the N, S, and W sides of the building, but left the E columns mostly in place. The metal beams of the roof that were above the crane remained attached to the columns, and presumably so did the crane. Thus it is possible that the ro the crane remained attached to the columns, and presumably so did the crane. Thus it is possible thof and crane were partially lifted by the explosion, pivoting on the W side, and then fell back to their original positions (except for the lack of support on the E side).

However, from looking at

(at time stamps about 10:13:27, and about 10:20:28)
those beams and with them the crane do indeed seem to have fallen flat on the floor -- smack on top of the lid, and with steam gushing out from under it.
 

Attachments

  • cranebeamsonfloor.jpg
    cranebeamsonfloor.jpg
    33.4 KB · Views: 378
  • cranebeamsonfloor2.jpg
    cranebeamsonfloor2.jpg
    38.5 KB · Views: 376
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,809


michael200 said:
Your picture is of a different refueling bridge design.

Your reflection is equivocal at best.
 
  • #2,810
MadderDoc said:
However, from looking at

(at time stamps about 10:13:27, and about 10:20:28)
those beams and with them the crane do indeed seem to have fallen flat on the floor -- smack on top of the lid, and with steam gushing out from under it.


Look back carefully at the debris on the ground at west side of Bldg 3 and you will see why the crane fell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,811
TCups said:
Did I hear that the two fatalities were in the basement of Bldg 4 -- I can't remember for sure? If they were working in the basement of Bldg 4, then were they perhaps trying to do just that when the explosion occurred?

Press Release (Apr 03,2011)
Employees of TEPCO Who Were Missing at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station


Due to the Tohoku-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake which occurred on March 11th
2011, two TEPCO employees, who had been working at the turbine building
of Unit 4 for site investigation, went missing.
We had put all our strengths to search them, and approximately at 3:25 pm
and at 3:53 pm, today, March 30th, 2011, those employees were found at
the basement of the turbine building and we confirmed their death
yesterday.
We would like to offer our deep regret that our workers died while
working at the plant and heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families.

[Deceased Employees of TEPCO]

Kazuhiko Kokubo (Age: 24) Operation Management Department One, Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
Yoshiki Terashima (Age: 21) Operation Management Department One,
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
 
  • #2,812
NUCENG said:
[Deceased Employees of TEPCO]

Kazuhiko Kokubo (Age: 24) Operation Management Department One, Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
Yoshiki Terashima (Age: 21) Operation Management Department One,
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

I'm quite surprised by the ages (24 and 21) of the deceased workers.
 
  • #2,813
Pure speculation:

Ages 24 and 21 sound like workers who were sent to do something even though there was a Tsunami Alert.
Their listing in the press release just includes their names and division, no titles but could operation Management mean they were in a higher pay grade?
If not, that would mean (a) supervisor(s) still living with guilt.

That they were in Turbine 4, which one would assume everyone on site knew reactor 4 was down, could indicate the caution they had relating to the spent fuel pool. (With the Turbine buildings holding condensers and providing cooling for both the reactor and SFP).
The workers were found in a basement - auxiliary control room as I recall.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,814
I have managed to identify the shared pool No. 7 for very old fuel
one of the thermal images had it labelled in Japanese

It is west of reactor No. 4
 

Attachments

  • sharedPool`1.jpg
    sharedPool`1.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 587
  • #2,815


michael200 said:
..Perhaps, I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like there was still significant water in the fuel pool on March 16. Anyone have an alternative speculation?

I'll think about that. Looking down in the unit 4 sfp with the more recent crane camera there just appears me to be 'something dark' down there -- judging from the railings seen on the far side of the pool, that surface is several meters below floor level --, and it does not look like water. (Alas, seeing steam obviously does continually escape from the pit, there must be some water down there, still
 

Attachments

  • lookingdownat_spf4_a.jpg
    lookingdownat_spf4_a.jpg
    22.2 KB · Views: 452
  • lookingdownat_spf4_b.jpg
    lookingdownat_spf4_b.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 431
  • #2,816
|Fred said:
it is my understanding that gauges are and have been working in the control room (analog power?) as they had to go every now and then to check the value with torch light.. and now they have regular cellar light

Well, the temperature and pressure data were available since shortly after the accident (at least for some units), well before they brought electricity to the control room. And, AFAIK, the control room panel is still dead.
 
  • #2,817
Bodge said:
Really looks like Gunderson should keep his gob shut.

If CL-38 detection was real then that would be the 'smoking gun'.

When CL-38 was first (reported) found it had a lot of people concerned, but it also had them scratching their heads because other isotopes were missing re: Astronuc and a student of radio chemistry.

The point here is simple. Gunderson should have been checking for reasons to dismiss his hypothesis (good science). And A Google search would have led him here, where questions about the reliability of the reported measures were raised at least two or three days before he made his public proclamations. Astronuc's responses to my and others questions have been frank (if a little scary at times), but showed no indications of bias.

I'd take Astronuc's opinion of event over Gunderson any day.
 
  • #2,818
MadderDoc said:
However, from looking at

nice video
the slab does have a strair like edge
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/ik5km0.jpg
and the is a similarity with the structure that we see there but is it ?
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/imQyfs.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,819


michael200 said:
It is reported that the cause of the unit 4 building damage was a H2 explosion caused by overheating of the discharged fuel in the U4 spent fuel pool. To the best of my knowledge, there is no photgraphic evidence of the explosion. Something that has troubled me since the first pictures of the Unit 4 damage on 16March, was whether there actually was a loss of inventory in the U4 spent fuel pool. Attached is a markup of the first photograph that was released on 16 March showing the U4 buiding damage. One can find the photo on Reuters site. This photo was taken before any water injection/spray in Unit 4. Perhaps, I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like there was still significant water in the fuel pool on March 16. Anyone have an alternative speculation?

One explanation that was and is being looked at is some kind of enhanced explosion. Take your pick from damaged fuel to other gas released due to earthquake damage.
 
  • #2,820


MadderDoc said:
judging from the railings seen on the far side of the pool,
not railing but the other crane
 
  • #2,821
MadderDoc said:
However, from looking at {video} those beams and with them the crane do indeed seem to have fallen flat on the floor -- smack on top of the lid, and with steam gushing out from under it.

Agreed for the crane; but one of the roof beams is still attached to its East column in the Aero Service images:

reactor3-E-3.png
 
Last edited:
  • #2,822
Jorge Stolfi-

Thank you for reporting the CAM radiation measurements in centi-Sieverts.

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/cams-un1.txt

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/cams-un2.txt

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/cams-un3.txt

You are about the only person I know who realizes that 1 centi-Sievert = 1 rem. Makes conversion from rems to Sieverts simple.

Bob S
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,823
Bob S said:
Thank you for reporting the CAM radiation measurements in centi-Sieverts. You are about the only person I know who realizes that 1 centi-Sievert = 1 rem.

I wish I deserved the compliment... but the truth is that I chose cSv/h because I wished the numbers to fit in a five digit field. And I can't recall now why that seemed a good idea at the time. :cool:
 
  • #2,824
BLAST DAMAGE AT UNIT 3

MadderDoc said:
However, from looking at

(at time stamps about 10:13:27, and about 10:20:28)
those beams and with them the crane do indeed seem to have fallen flat on the floor -- smack on top of the lid, and with steam gushing out from under it.


@ MadderDoc, Fred, et. al.:

Re: New video. Attached is a screenshot from the viedo with and without annotations of what I think I see. As ever, I say the blast came out of the primary containment, through failed seals on the transfer ("cattle") chute gate. But then, it is all too easy to see what you expect to see and want to see. Comments?

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04annotated.png

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04at50940PM.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,825
TCups said:
@ MadderDoc, Fred, et. al.:

Re: New video. Attached is a screenshot from the viedo with and without annotations of what I think I see. As ever, I say the blast came out of the primary containment, through failed seals on the transfer ("cattle") chute gate. But then, it is all to easy to see what you expect to see and want to see. Comments?

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04annotated.png

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04at50940PM.png

You did call this quite a while ago. Nice job there!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,826
Look at the huge steel doors that are where they move the spent fuel rods out in dry casks I believe in lower right of post #2836 . They look like they where almost blown off there hinges in outward direction . The explosion must have traveled into the lower sections of Unit #3 also .
 
  • #2,827
shogun338 said:
Look at the huge steel doors that are where they move the spent fuel rods out in dry casks I believe in lower right of post #2836 . They look like they where almost blown off there hinges in outward direction . The explosion must have traveled into the lower sections of Unit #3 also .

Hmmm . . . yes maybe so. You are referring to the steel doors at ground level on the tunnel-like structure, correct? If so, though, the one on Bldg 4 looks even worse. The whole tunnel is exploded outward.
 
  • #2,828
I have updated again my plots of the reactor variables:
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/Main.html"

Up to METI/NISA release 73 (apr/04 15:00).
Also included some data for unit #1 from a plot shown in earlier post on this thread.

Also fixed the "cur" link, sorry --- it was indeed out of date.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,829
TCups said:
BLAST DAMAGE AT UNIT 3



@ MadderDoc, Fred, et. al.:

Re: New video. Attached is a screenshot from the viedo with and without annotations of what I think I see. As ever, I say the blast came out of the primary containment, through failed seals on the transfer ("cattle") chute gate. But then, it is all to easy to see what you expect to see and want to see. Comments?

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04annotated.png


http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04at50940PM.png


BINGO! You are quite good.

Respect and kudos for your stamina
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,830
TCups said:
Hmmm . . . yes maybe so. You are referring to the steel doors at ground level on the tunnel-like structure, correct? If so, though, the one on Bldg 4 looks even worse. The whole tunnel is exploded outward.

Yes .
 
  • #2,831
Jorge Stolfi said:
I have updated again my plots of the reactor variables:
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/Main.html"

Up to METI/NISA release 73 (apr/04 15:00).
Also included some data for unit #1 from a plot shown in earlier post on this thread.

Also fixed the "cur" link, sorry --- it was indeed out of date.

'Jorge' (sorry-you are not Joe) what is going on with core pressure in number 1? It doesn't deem to correlate with temperature readings?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,833
I wonder how much sense makes comparison of the IR images if we don't know what was the air temperature and wind. Quite likely differences are in some part effect of the external conditions (that is, IR pictures should be different when wind changes, even if the localization of heat sources and amount of heat produced is constant).
 
  • #2,834
M. Bachmeier said:
'Jorge' (sorry-you are not Joe) what is going on with core pressure in number 1? It doesn't deem to correlate with temperature readings?

The temperature sensors are cooked. I don't believe they're returning real values any longer. There likely is an offset in the output now.

I suspect the temperature is being reported higher then it really is.
 
  • #2,835
Cire said:
The temperature sensors are cooked. I don't believe they're returning real values any longer. There likely is an offset in the output now.

I suspect the temperature is being reported higher then it really is.

Do you mean temperature is higher than is being reported? Do you have some supporting reference, link etc.?
 

Similar threads

Ukraine nuclear power plant Zaporizhzhia on fire
    • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Fukushima Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster discussions
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
12
Views
46K
Fukushima Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants Fukushima part 2
    • Nuclear Engineering
51
Replies
2K
Views
417K
Fukushima Critiques of Fukushima Thyroid-Cancer Study
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
2K
Fukushima Are US Nuclear Power Plants Prepared for Earthquakes?
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
5
Views
5K
What if a nuclear power plant loses outside electricity?
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
6
Views
17K
Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects
    • Nuclear Engineering
22
Replies
763
Views
258K
Fukushima How will they end the Fukushima disaster?
    • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
38
Views
14K
Thoughts on nuclear power and disasters [long, rant/tangenty]
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
6
Views
3K
Fukushima The geological issues of the Fukushima Daiichi
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
4
Views
11K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top