8.9 earthquake in Japan: tsunami warnings

[nismaratwork]

Thank you for posting those pictures. All these http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12725485" makes me wonder how weak we are before nature.

We're small, and meat.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Tsunami Before and After photos

http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm

Thanks PS, unbelievable, JUST UNBELIEVABLE!

The picture of Fukushima Power Plant looks "unreal"?? The area in front of the plant is ERASED?? Did they not build that breakwater to handle tsunamis??

Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant 1975

 

[AlephZero]

It is a little late for remedial action to regain confidence. Such a pedestrian oversight is unforgivable!

I hear the voice of somebody working in a different industry here.

OK, I do civil aerospace not nuclear, but I think one thing is common between the two: it is never (well, hardly ever) the things that you DO know about that get you.

Throwing words like "oversight" around is nonsense, unless you have some solid proof, not a quote from some know-nothing on a news report. (I would have hoped the guy who moderates the debunking forum wouldn't need to be told that!) I would happily bet my own money that a group of experienced engineers sat down and carefully considered the best estimates of the risks that were available to them at the time, and their conclusions were scrutinised by a lot of other people before the plants were actually designed and built.

I've been part of enough critical design reviews (and a few accident inquiries as well, sadly ) to know what REALLY happens in those situations.

The fact that they were wrong is just hindsight, and hindsight is the ONLY exact science that humans have learned about, so far.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks PS, unbelievable, JUST UNBELIEVABLE!

The picture of Fukushima Power Plant looks "unreal"?? The area in front of the plant is ERASED?? Did they not build that breakwater to handle tsunamis??

One can see the breakwaters. They just weren't high enough for the particular tsunami that hit. The before and after pictures on the oceanside of the plant are quite telling.

 

[nismaratwork]

Good let's not let this get derailed by facts, let's just spew our own views here without respect for the people who are dying as we speak under rubble. I'm sure that the people of Japan and all those who will be effected by this take great comfort in the tidings of all sides of this argument, pro and anti nuclear, and the 'wait and see'.

OR...

and here's a thought... take the pro/anti nuke arguments to a pro/anti nuke thread, and follow the rules you make.

@Astronuc: High enough or not, the sheer volume of water and force behind it probably would have overwhelmed them if it couldn't have ridden over it. It's almost as if they didn't expect the worst earthquake in their recorded history... oh right, they didn't. I think I'm going to take a page from root's and your book... you two ARE right... speculation leads down a bad road.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

One can see the breakwaters. They just weren't high enough for the particular tsunami that hit. The before and after pictures on the oceanside of the plant are quite telling.

This is 'weird'... maybe because I’m layman... but for g*d’s sake we are talking 'simple' rocks and concrete...?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Astronuc, please correct me if I’m wrong.

From a "layman view", it looks like the Japanese people had all the "bad luck" in the world...

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant" . Construction began in 1966 and reactor unit 1 was in production 1971, and was initially scheduled for shutdown in early 2011. In February 2011, Japanese regulators granted an extension of ten years for the continued operation of unit 1.
  
  
• When the earthquake struck, the newer reactors 4, 5 and 6 were undergoing maintenance.
  
  
• TEPCO has earlier been involved in security scandals:
  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company#Scandal
  
  Scandal
  
  On August 29, 2002, the government of Japan revealed that TEPCO was guilty of false reporting in routine governmental inspection of its nuclear plants and systematic concealment of plant safety incidents. All seventeen of its boiling-water reactors were shut down for inspection as a result. TEPCO's chairman Hiroshi Araki, President Nobuya Minami, Vice-President Toshiaki Enomoto, as well as the advisers Shō Nasu and Gaishi Hiraiwa stept by September 30, 2002.[3], and the utility "eventually admitted to two hundred occasions over more than two decades between 1977 and 2002, involving the submission of false technical data to authorities".[4] Upon taking over leadership responsibilities, TEPCO's new president issued a public commitment that the company would take all the countermeasures necessary to prevent fraud and restore the nation's confidence. By the end of 2005, generation at suspended plants had been restarted, with government approval.
  
  In 2007, however, the company announced to the public that an internal investigation had revealed a large number of unreported incidents. These included an unexpected unit criticality in 1978 and additional systematic false reporting, which hadn't been uncovered during the 2002 inquiry. Along with scandals at other Japanese electric companies, this failure to ensure corporate compliance resulted in strong public criticism of Japan's electric power industry and the nation's nuclear energy policy. Again the company made no effort to identify those responsible.

  
  
  
• Reactor 3 runs on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel" (MOX):
  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_incident#Reactor_unit_3
  
  Unlike the other five reactor units, reactor 3 runs on mixed uranium and plutonium oxide, or MOX fuel, making it potentially more dangerous in an incident due to the neutronic effects of plutonium on the reactor and the carcinogenic effects in the event of release to the environment.

  
  
  
• Fukushima I is one of the 25 largest nuclear power stations in the world.

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/2011-03-12_1800_NHK_S%C5%8Dg%C5%8D_channel_news_program_screen_shot.jpg

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/BWR_Mark_I_Containment%2C_cutaway.jpg
BWR Mark I Concrete Containment


Astronuc, do you know if BWR Mark I have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boilin...ems#Emergency_Core_Cooling_System_.28ECCS.29" (ECCS) that can be directly operated by steam and provide water without electrically driven pumps...?

 

[nismaratwork]

This is 'weird'... maybe because I’m layman... but for g*d’s sake we are talking 'simple' rocks and concrete...?

As opposed to degenerate neutron matter and pixie dust?

 

[Astronuc]

Astronuc, do you know if BWR Mark I have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boilin...ems#Emergency_Core_Cooling_System_.28ECCS.29" (ECCS) that can be directly operated by steam and provide water without electrically driven pumps...?

I don't know the specifics of Unit 1, particularly the order or sequence of events in the shutdown. According to the Wiki article cited: "HPCI is powered by steam from the reactor, and takes approximately 10 seconds to spin up from an initiating signal, and can deliver approximately 19,000 L/min (5,000 US gal/min) to the core at any core pressure above 6.8 atm (690 kPa, 100 psi)." It's not clear to me if that was an issue.

When the plant is completely shutdown, there is no steam, so those pumps used for cooling while the plant is shutdown, I would expect are run by electrical power. The site lost the connection with the grid, and the other units went down, so the EDGs would have to provide the electricity. They did so for one hour and then stopped, ostensibly because the tsunami compromised the fuel supply (did the fuel supply get flooded so they pumped water into the EDGs? or did the tsunami knock out the fuel pumps? or EDGs directly?).

We still don't have a clear picture of the sequents of events.



As for protecting against an earthquake and tsunami, every site is required to provide protection against natural events, including floods, hurricanes, tornados, fires, earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, and seiches.

The bible for designing, constructing and operating a nuclear plant is
Reg Guide 1.70 - http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML011340122
Regulatory Guide 1.070 (Revision 3), Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition.

Chapter 2 mandates consideration of seismic and hydrological phenomena:

2.4 Hydrologic Engineering

The following sections should contain sufficient information to allow an independent hydrologic engineering review to be made of all hydrologically related design bases, performance requirements, and bases for operation of structures, systems, and components important to safety, considering the following phenomena or conditions:
1. Runoff floods for streams, reservoirs, adjacent drainage areas, and site drainage, and flood waves resulting from dam failures induced by runoff floods,
2. Surges, seiches, and wave action,
3. Tsunami,
4. Nonrunoff-induced flood waves due to dam failures or landslides,
5. Blockage of cooling water sources by natural events,
6. Ice jam flooding,
7. Combinations of flood types,
8. Low water and/or drought effects (including setdown due to surges, seiches, or tsunami) on safety-related cooling water supplies and their dependability,
9. Channel diversions of safety-related cooling water sources,
10. Capacity requirements for safety-related cooling water sources, and
11. Dilution and dispersion of severe accidental releases to the hydrosphere relating to existing and potential future users of surface water and groundwater resources.


Somewhere I would expect to be a calculation or statement as to the maximum height of a tsunami. That will have to be revisited.

However, assuming that the Japanese authorities follow the NRC, and usually other national regulatory authorities have followed the NRC, they would have had the same or similar language for all sites in Japan, and the responsible architect/engineer and utility would have to consider protection of the emergency/safety systems from earthquakes and tsunamis.

 

[nismaratwork]

... And CNN is reporting smoke from reactor 1, and an explosion from reactor 3 of Fukishima... it shoujld be noted they predicted another hydrogen explosion in reactor 3... sooo... maybe this isn't bad.

Oh, and an aftershock MAY have produced an incoming 2-3 meter wave.


edit: Oh yes, and another 2000 bodies found in Miyagi prefecture. One of them might be another friend of mine I'd though had been out of the country! Ahhh... good ******* times.

 

[Proton Soup]

Those pictures are horrifying PS.

i used to think i wanted to live on the shore.

 

[nismaratwork]

i used to think i wanted to live on the shore.

I did live about 20 miles away from that for over 6 months. It was beautiful.

 

[hypatia]

nismaratwork, I hope your friend is safe.

 

[Astronuc]

The first four years of my life were spent in two coastal towns, one on the south coast of Victoria, Australia. It was a nice quiet place. There was a stone fountain that changed colours at night. It was in a park down by the seashore. The house was about 1000 ft from the ocean. I could happily live there again.

. . . .
While Nagatacho, Japan's political nerve centre, has united around the rescue and relief effort, criticism of the authorities' response is seeping through. A headline in the Asahi Shimbun blasted the government's "incoherent" crisis management strategy, accusing it of taking too long to release information about the problems at Fukushima nuclear plant and evacuate tens of thousands of people living nearby. "Every time they urged us to 'stay calm' without providing concrete data, they simply made people more anxious," the paper quoted an unidentified politician as saying.

The cost of the rescue, relief and recovery effort will be huge. Manufacturers have closed plants while the energy infrastructure, from closed or crippled nuclear plants to burning oil refineries, is so badly damaged that power companies have warned of sporadic electricity cuts in areas hundreds of miles from the epicentre.
. . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/13/japan-earthquake-tsunami-nuclear-crisis

 

[nismaratwork]

nismaratwork, I hope your friend is safe.

So do I, but it's not looking good. Thank you Hypatia.

@Astronuc: Beauty always seems to have a steep price eh?

 

[Astronuc]

@Astronuc: Beauty always seems to have a steep price eh?

It was a nice quiet corner of the world 50 years ago, except when outsiders (vacationers) came to town. When I lived there, there were about 200 people. The population would swell during holidays. I preferred it when out-of-towners weren't around. Yeah - that's selfish - but then I was only 2.


Meanwhile - 407 earthquakes above mag 4 since the mag 7.2 at 02:45:20 on March 9!

 

[nismaratwork]

It was a nice quiet corner of the world 50 years ago, except when outsiders (vacationers) came to town. When I lived there, there were about 200 people. The population would swell during holidays. I preferred it when out-of-towners weren't around. Yeah - that's selfish - but then I was only 2.


Meanwhile - 407 earthquakes above mag 4 since the mag 7.2 at 02:45:20 on March 9!

Fantastic... well... what more could go wrong except Godzilla? Really, this is becoming absurd in a sub-cosmic fashion.

 

[nismaratwork]

Damn...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/13/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Good news on the clickclick front, bad news for those 6 people injured. Those are either some foolish, or more likely very VERY brave people who were there, especially as they suspected this was coming.

I would already be planning a sarcophagous for Fukishima, and damn it all. Clearly these are NOT the right reactors for this place...

...And again... if we had better (or ANY) means to store large amounts of power, and transmit it... then these plants could be elsewhere. FRUSTERATING.

 

[jreelawg]

I once spent two weeks here. If I could, I would live there even if it meant one day being killed by a tsunami.

[url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/][PLAIN]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/21aff14cec.jpg[/url][/PLAIN]

 

[OmCheeto]

You can almost visualize the plates moving:

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This looks really bad, definitely a bigger explosion than unit 1, + that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel" in unit 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_N-wNFSGyQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL4bhit7Sc8


(Thanks Astro, I get back on your answer)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

As opposed to degenerate neutron matter and pixie dust?

With all due respect nismar, I have no idea what you are talking about?

It’s OK to talk about the "beautiful shore"? But NOT about the shortcomings in security, that could have prevented the catastrophe from ever happened?

That is WEIRD.

 

[rhody]

Looks like they are keeping a eye on Shinmoedake as well. Eruptions are common in the area, but this volcano erupted in January 2011, the first major seismic activity on the mountain in 52 years.

To all,

Let's add a pyroclastic ash cloud (in the event of a major volcanic eruption) to the equation as well. I would guess that such a cloud of sufficient volume lasting for a sufficient amount of time, would render the backup diesel generator's useless, setting the stage for the same scenario we see going on here at any nuc plant unfortunate enough to be caught in it. Not to be funny, but maybe a bunch of guys with firefighter like breathing apparatus, and some sort of ash clearing gear could keep it going, but that is just a guess.

Rhody...

nismara,

Hope your friend is ok over there...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Large image from DigitalGlobe showing the devastation at Fukushima I plant.

http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/featured_images/japan_earthquaketsu_fukushima_daini_march12_2011_dg.jpg

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I hope nismar's friend is ok, too.

Has there been mention of rod exposure here, yet?
e.g,
"The fuel rod exposure at Fukushima Daiichi number 2 reactor is potentially the most serious event so far at the plant.

A local government official confirmed the fuel rods were at one point largely, if not totally exposed; but we do not know for how long. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393

 

[Astronuc]

I hope nismar's friend is ok, too.

Has there been mention of rod exposure here, yet?
e.g,
"The fuel rod exposure at Fukushima Daiichi number 2 reactor is potentially the most serious event so far at the plant.

A local government official confirmed the fuel rods were at one point largely, if not totally exposed; but we do not know for how long. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393

I don't see how the fuel exposure at Unit 2 is necessarily worse than for Unit 1 or 3, however, that means they've had 3 loss of coolant accidents at 3 units. One is bad enough, three is just three times worse.

The use of MOX fuel is not significant. UO2 fuel essentially becomes MOX toward end of life because all LWRs produced Pu in the fuel as a result of the conversion of U238 to Pu239, Pu240, Pu241, with some Am and Cm isotopes depending on burnup.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Thanks very much for the explanation, Astro.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Yes, thanks very much Astro for explaining these things.

Just one question: I read more about MOX, and there’s only small amount (7%) plutonium in the fuel. The 'risk' with plutonium is that it’s a radioactive poison that can spontaneously ignite when exposed to moist air. All uranium isotopes are only weakly radioactive. To me this means – if all the fuel in the three reactors is 'old'; then there is no bigger 'security difference'. It the fuel is 'new'; there could be some difference in possible 'risks'...

Correct?

 

[nismaratwork]

With all due respect nismar, I have no idea what you are talking about?

It’s OK to talk about the "beautiful shore"? But NOT about the shortcomings in security, that could have prevented the catastrophe from ever happened?

That is WEIRD.

I can't think of a breakwater that could have stopped that volume of water and the energy involed from either backing up and passing around it behind the plant, destroying everything between the pylons, or what it did... passed right over it.

This is why I'm so dismayed by the placement of the plant.

@Rhody: Thanks man.

@Fuzzyfelt: Thank you too.

 

[dlgoff]

Thank you Astronuc for being here for us on these reactor issues. I for one am learning a lot.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, thanks very much Astro for explaining these things.

Just one question: I read more about MOX, and there’s only small amount (7%) plutonium in the fuel. The 'risk' with plutonium is that it’s a radioactive poison that can spontaneously ignite when exposed to moist air. All uranium isotopes are only weakly radioactive. To me this means – if all the fuel in the three reactors is 'old'; then there is no bigger 'security difference'. It the fuel is 'new'; there could be some difference in possible 'risks'...

Correct?

The fuel in the core is in the form of oxide, usually UO2, or (U,Pu)O2 in MOX, and the fission products produced during the course of operation. An oxide will not combust. In contact with high temperature water, the UO2 and MOX can oxidize to higher order oxides, M3O8, M4O9, or MO3, where M = U,Pu, or a hydrated oxide, or hydroxide, which is soluble.

At beginning of cycle, a reactor core contains fresh fuel (no irradiation), one-cycle fuel, two-cycle fuel, and perhaps three-cycle fuel. At end of cycle, we refer to once-burned (one-cycle), twice-burned, thrice-burned, or whatever, depending on the number of cycles used.

We measure utilization of fuel in terms of burnup, e.g., GWd/tU, or GWd/tHM (HM = heavy metal = U or Pu), which is just energy per unit mass. For consumption of 1% of the initial U (U235+U238), the equivalent burnup is about 9.7 GWd/tU.

The question is however, how much of the fuel cladding reacted with the steam, or how much of the fuel failed, and we will not know for months until they open the core, which they can't do with fission gases or fission products in the coolant.

The damaged/destroyed equipment, e.g., upper containment structure, overhead crane, fuel handling equipment will have to be replaced. They will likely have to construct some special containment to replace that which has been destroyed. That will take a lot of time.

And because of the radiation field, any inspection of the damage cores will be done remotely.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Many thanks Astro.

 

[rhody]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-volcano-20110314,0,2486939.story"

The volcano is on Kyushu island, about 950 miles from the epicenter of Friday's magnitude 9.0 earthquake, which devastated much of the country's northeastern coast.

Photos: Scenes of earthquake destruction

It was unclear if the eruptions were linked to quake, officials said. Japan lies on the "ring of fire," a seismically active zone where earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are common.

and

Sunday's eruption, which was the biggest volcanic activity in Shinmoedake in 52 years, caused widespread destruction and panic. The blast could be heard for miles, and shattered windows four miles away, the BBC reported. Hundreds of people fled the area as the volcano spewed debris, including hot ash and rocks, more than 6,000 feet in the air, according to BBC reports.

You all know my next question after this report, right ? Where is the nearest Nuc Power Plant ?

Rhody...

Here is a selection of http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...aq=2&aqi=g5g-s1g4&aql=&oq=Kyushu&safe=active"

 

[DevilsAvocado]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-volcano-20110314,0,2486939.story"

wow

Where is the nearest Nuc Power Plant ?

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/a/a1/AKWs.japan.png

EDIT:
That would be Genkai and Sendai.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-volcano-20110314,0,2486939.story"

grief! waiting on reports of godzilla now!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

grief! waiting on reports of godzilla now!

Greg, time to cancel the trip?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I can't think of a breakwater that could have stopped that volume of water and the energy involed from either backing up and passing around it behind the plant, destroying everything between the pylons, or what it did... passed right over it.

This is why I'm so dismayed by the placement of the plant.

Okay, now when you say what you mean it all make sense!

(sort of )

 

[nismaratwork]

Great... juuuuuust great. I'm going to clean my p229, and head to the range... I have stress to relieve.

 

[turbo]

I can't think of a breakwater that could have stopped that volume of water and the energy involed from either backing up and passing around it behind the plant, destroying everything between the pylons, or what it did... passed right over it.

This is why I'm so dismayed by the placement of the plant.

That's part of the quandary of plant-siting. Do you site a plant near the sea where you have practically unlimited water for cooling, or in a place safer from tsunamis (farther inland) where you have to use less-reliable rivers and/or lakes that are susceptible to drying up or getting overly warm due to droughts and heat waves? If your country has temperature standards that you can violate with cooling water discharges in the summer, you have to cut back power production to avoid violating those standards.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's part of the quandary of plant-siting. Do you site a plant near the sea where you have practically unlimited water for cooling, or in a place safer from tsunamis (farther inland) where you have to use less-reliable rivers and/or lakes that are susceptible to drying up or getting overly warm due to droughts and heat waves? If your country has temperature standards that you can violate with cooling water discharges in the summer, you have to cut back power production to avoid violating those standards.

You don't use a WR, instead you look to modern plant designs that rely on gasses to dissipate waste heat, and minimize it to begin with using novel fuel arrangements and types.

Given the age of so many of our current facilities, it's time to rebuild anyway. Still... better to centralize production in some of the states which frankly, could lose a few dozen miles to an exlusion zone.

 

[Astronuc]

That's part of the quandary of plant-siting. Do you site a plant near the sea where you have practically unlimited water for cooling, or in a place safer from tsunamis (farther inland) where you have to use less-reliable rivers and/or lakes that are susceptible to drying up or getting overly warm due to droughts and heat waves? If your country has temperature standards that you can violate with cooling water discharges in the summer, you have to cut back power production to avoid violating those standards.

One doesn't put fuel storage tanks on the oceanside for one, and one doesn't put electrical equipment on the lowest level where they will get knocked out by tsunami.

 

[rhody]

Astro just reported this in the other thread: Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants, latest post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3187449&postcount=88"

Apparently the US 7th Fleet has detected radiation at sea and are moving out of the area.

Any sustained activity offsite is a bit worrisome because it means radioactivity is getting of site in significant (not quantified) amounts.

Rhody...

P.S. I will be checking both threads from now on, because bits and pieces of the same story are to be found in both.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

One doesn't put fuel storage tanks on the oceanside for one, and one doesn't put electrical equipment on the lowest level where they will get knocked out by tsunami.

I don’t know how many times I have said this, but again – Thanks Astronuc! For being here and sorting out the obvious for the "self-proclaimed experts" (= laymen guessing = includes me).

I don’t know what we would do without you...

 

[nismaratwork]

I don’t know how many times I have said this, but again – Thanks Astronuc! For being here and sorting out the obvious for the "self-proclaimed experts" (= laymen guessing = includes me).

I don’t know what we would do without you...

We'd be terrified, and ignorant, but then, we have Astronuc, and now this in the permanant record of this site.

I love how knowledge builds on the internet... it rarely fades.



Oh yes, and my friend somehow managed to get a friend of a friend of a friend's relative to send a text, he's alive, his family is alive, but their homes are destroyed. Thanks for the concern all who expressed it. I admit, this is a relief.

@Astronuc: How can that be overlooked, I mean, the placement? It makes no sense as corruption, and makes no sense as an oversight. I can believe it's just an error that we see in hindsight for the simple reason that there's no reason to ignore safety like that, is there?

Still, it sound like the disaster here is not a radiological release of any significance, but the destruction of generation, and the loss of face.

 

[Astronuc]

Oh yes, and my friend somehow managed to get a friend of a friend of a friend's relative to send a text, he's alive, his family is alive, but their homes are destroyed. Thanks for the concern all who expressed it. I admit, this is a relief.

I am glad one's friend is OK.

@Astronuc: How can that be overlooked, I mean, the placement? It makes no sense as corruption, and makes no sense as an oversight. I can believe it's just an error that we see in hindsight for the simple reason that there's no reason to ignore safety like that, is there?

Still, it sound like the disaster here is not a radiological release of any significance, but the destruction of generation, and the loss of face.

Apparently, 40+ years ago, some folks convinced themselves that the current configuration of the plant would suffice. A colleague informed me that he heard (so treat this as hearsay or unverified), that the breakwaters and site were designed assuming a 6.5 or 7 m tsunami. Whatever tsunami hit them, it was beyond the design capacity of the site.

Somewhere is a document that indicates the rationale behind the design in terms of earthquake magnitude/seismic activity and associated tsunami. I would like to read that document. I did a search on NEIC and NGDC databases and found the occurrence of quakes greater than mag 8 and greater the mag 7 around Japan since 1900. I would like to compare that data with the assumptions used in the FK plant design.

 

[nismaratwork]

I am glad one's friend is OK.

Apparently, 40+ years ago, some folks convinced themselves that the current configuration of the plant would suffice. A colleague informed me that he heard (so treat this as hearsay or unverified), that the breakwaters and site were designed assuming a 6.5 or 7 m tsunami. Whatever tsunami hit them, it was beyond the design capacity of the site.

Somewhere is a document that indicates the rationale behind the design in terms of earthquake magnitude/seismic activity and associated tsunami. I would like to read that document. I did a search on NEIC and NGDC databases and found the occurrence of quakes greater than mag 8 and greater the mag 7 around Japan since 1900. I would like to compare that data with the assumptions used in the FK plant design.

That makes a kind of sense... it's the mistakes I expect; those that compound over the years without adequate review. The good news is that it sounds like this isn't a universal problem, but grist for a review of plant placements?

Wouldn't it be great if we could actually form a national policy of nuclear development, maybe by executive order? I can practically hear the coal/LNG industry licking its chops over this, which is the worst outcome IMO.

Thanks for the well wishes too Astronuc.

 

[rhody]

According to this article and so far not been discussed in this thread, what about the spent fuel contained in holding ponds or pools, in the reactor building or on the grounds ? From the article:

http://www.dcbureau.org/201103141303/Natural-Resources-News-Service/fission-criticality-in-cooling-ponds-threaten-explosion-at-fukushima.html"

The same diagram appears in the Sunday New York Times, pA11, with the uppermost rectangular chamber just to the left of the reactor top identified as the spent fuel storage pool, but the accompanying article does not discuss it.

Donnay said, “If these pools are breached (as could have happened in the explosions, Fukushima #3 looks worse than #1) and can no longer hold water, the spent fuel racked inside them will start to overheat, and eventually melt and burn. And since there is no longer any roof above these pools in reactors 1 and 3, all the radioactivity they contain is directly open to the atmosphere.”

According to a Defense Department source, the cesium detected in the atmosphere around the plant could be coming from the spent fuel pools.

and

According to NIRS (Nuclear Information Resource Service) at http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/brownsferryfactsheet.pdf"In the GE Mark I design, the irradiated fuel pool, containing billions of curies of high-level atomic waste, sits atop the reactor building, outside primary containment and vulnerable to attack, according to both NRC documents (2001) and the National Academy of Sciences (2005)."

It appears that spent fuel presents a threat as well, not just the fuel loaded in the reactor pressure vessel.

Astro, your take on this ?

Rhody...

P.S. The source of the story appears to be credible: www.dcbureau.org[/URL]

 

[turbo]

Thanks, Rhody. I have been chasing down that angle all day, and have been getting blogs and fear-mongers (I hope they are fear-mongers) and asked Astro for clarification in the other thread.

 

[dlgoff]

Just heard about this.

TOKYO — Japan’s nuclear safety agency says an explosion has been heard at Unit 2 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japanese-nuclear-safety-agency-says-explosion-heard-at-unit-2-of-fukushima-dai-ichi-plant/2011/03/14/ABbuCXV_story.html"

Edit: This just happen. By The Associated Press, Monday, March 14, 7:10 PM

 

[nismaratwork]

It seems there was a minor radiation release, and it also seems that some crewmembers of The Reagan (19 I think) were exposed to a fair (but nothing like a truly dangerous) dose.

Lets just hope the fuel stays submerged...