Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

AI Thread Summary
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is facing significant challenges following the earthquake, with reports indicating that reactor pressure has reached dangerous levels, potentially 2.1 times capacity. TEPCO has lost control of pressure at a second unit, raising concerns about safety and management accountability. The reactor is currently off but continues to produce decay heat, necessitating cooling to prevent a meltdown. There are conflicting reports about an explosion, with indications that it may have originated from a buildup of hydrogen around the containment vessel. The situation remains serious, and TEPCO plans to flood the containment vessel with seawater as a cooling measure.
  • #8,551
elektrownik said:
But how they can do this without entering building ?

They may be tapping into the existing piping for the residual heat removal system (RHRS) for the SFP.

The regular heat exchanger for that should be in the turbine hall next door, from where they also do all the water injection into the core.

Originally, when they reconnected external power to the turbine halls after March 20 they talked about restarting the RHRS for the reactor core and SFP, but that never happened. Perhaps the motors for the pumps had been damaged by seawater.

They may have hooked up temporary pumps to the original RHRS pipes to the SFP.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #8,552
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,553
elektrownik said:
I know that some generators were in inspection/modyfication, so they were offline and doesn't turn on
So they operated the reactors without sufficient emergency power? Is this permitted? Station blackout has been considered one of the most likely and dangerous incidents - and we now know for sure it is!
 
  • #8,554
AntonL said:
Furthermore we soon will get to know where the steam is coming from - the fuel pool or the reactor.

A long documentary on the construction of Fukushima Daiichi was posted here a while ago. One interesting thing I learned from it is that there is a 5cm wide gap between the steel enclosure of the drywell (the "ligh bulb" part of the primary containment) and the surrounding concrete (aka secondary containment).

That gap makes sense of course to accommodate thermal expansion of the steel. But it means that steam leaking through the drywell, at a breach or ruptured flange anywhere, may travel withinh that gap and escape from the secondary containment at a completely different place. Isn't that so?

In particular, the steam that is seen leaking from the refueling pool in unit #3 may come from a leak much lower down on the drywell's wall.

I do not know what is the situation at the very bottom of the drywell, the part that is buried in the concrete. That part must be supporting a LOT of weight (drywell wall + rod actuators + inner concrete shield + pressure vessel + fuel + water in reactor + water in refueling pool + other stuff). So I would guess that it is resting on the underlying concrete, without any gap.
 
  • #8,555
Borek said:
Are the diesels already repaired? If not, oil leaks don't matter much. That is - they add to the mess, but they don't make the system more vulnerable.

According to this article:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110601a3.html"
Tepco spokesman Junichi Matsumoto said the utility believes the leak probably started on or shortly after March 11, noting the tsunami moved the tanks more than 10 meters to the north.
They probably had more important things to do than search for and fix the inevitable leak.

There is a picture on Tepco's website of some oil (diesel?) on water.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/110311/images/110531_01.jpg"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,556
Jorge Stolfi said:
A long documentary on the construction of Fukushima Daiichi was posted here a while ago. One interesting thing I learned from it is that there is a 5cm wide gap between the steel enclosure of the drywell (the "ligh bulb" part of the primary containment) and the surrounding concrete (aka secondary containment).

That gap makes sense of course to accommodate thermal expansion of the steel. But it means that steam leaking through the drywell, at a breach or ruptured flange anywhere, may travel withinh that gap and escape from the secondary containment at a completely different place. Isn't that so?

In particular, the steam that is seen leaking from the refueling pool in unit #3 may come from a leak much lower down on the drywell's wall.

I do not know what is the situation at the very bottom of the drywell, the part that is buried in the concrete. That part must be supporting a LOT of weight (drywell wall + rod actuators + inner concrete shield + pressure vessel + fuel + water in reactor + water in refueling pool + other stuff). So I would guess that it is resting on the underlying concrete, without any gap.
Yes, i remarked also this interesting point when i saw the video (they were putting a kind of wooden block to get the 5 cms gap if i remember well), and so you maybe be very right: if this enveloppe is damaged then steam will leak and move towards the top. I have no idea of how the design is done in the lower part of the containment, you are right, it's not possible in my mind to have this design there.

On this subject, maybe some infos here:https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20457%20CSE%20462%20Safety%20Analysis%20of%20Nuclear%20Reactor%20Systems/Containment%20Structures.pdf
(see page 2 drawing for a different containment, and page 18 a very nice drawing for BWR Mark I which shows the precise design in this bottom area: steel is embedded in the concrete)

http://140.116.36.16/paper/22.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,557
Some hours ago there were reports about an explosion near R4. Watching the new webcam I see a building (rightmost one) near R4 which *seems* to smoke or burn.

Difficult to tell in detail, but I think something is going on there.

What building is this? Looks like the nuclear waste facility. What do the experts think?
 
  • #8,558
ottomane said:
Some hours ago there were reports about an explosion near R4. Watching the new webcam I see a building (rightmost one) near R4 which *seems* to smoke or burn.

Difficult to tell in detail, but I think something is going on there.

What building is this? Looks like the nuclear waste facility. What do the experts think?

Yes I see it also, this is between unit 2 and 3, but closer to 2, maybe this is connected to works to restore unit 2 sfp cooling ? Who know...
 
  • #8,559
Yep, just checked the Tepco webcam and wanted to report the smoke or steam coming out from the ground floor it seems of maybe N°3 (difficult to see in fact). But you already did it!
 
  • #8,560
Yes, there is sth. near R3 now. What I was referring to was the small building very right in the picture, but there is nothing to see now. Maybe they stopped the fire.
 
  • #8,561
htf said:
So they operated the reactors without sufficient emergency power? Is this permitted? Station blackout has been considered one of the most likely and dangerous incidents - and we now know for sure it is!

Well for the plants in the US, the operability of the EDGs is controlled by the plant Technical Specifications. These Tech Specs (part of the plant license) are sort of like a procedure that describes what must be done when any of the safety systems is degraded. Failure to follow the Tech Specs will get you fired and get the plant a big fine.

As far as the emergency diesels, typically each reactor has two EDGs; and the Tech Specs say if one EDG is inoperable, the operators have 8 hours to verify that the other EDG is OK (by testing it), and then they have a specified time (7 days) to fix the broken EDG. If they can't fix it in that time, then they have to shut the plant down. The times (8 hrs and 7 days above) might vary from plant to plant.
 
  • #8,562
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/11053106_table_summary-e.pdf

The RPV bellow seal temperature sensor of unit 2 is back and registering at 182 Celsius
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,563
GJBRKS said:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/11053106_table_summary-e.pdf

The RPV bellow seal temperature sensor of unit 2 is back and registering at 182 Celsius

And N°3 is again rising at 219,7 °C. If the sensors work, then no doubt, this thing is alive and changing...

In fact, there has been a big surge again it seems on this temperature, at RPV Bellows seal, in reactor n°3:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/11053106_temp_data_3u-e.pdf

Any idea of what this could indicate, ads this is not the first time?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,564
elektrownik said:

From the article:

The water, recently found in the basement of the No. 1 reactor building of the nuclear power plant, contained 30,000 becquerels of iodine-131 per cubic centimeter, 2.5 million becquerels of cesium-134 and 2.9 million becquerels of cesium-137.

... The amount is estimated at 2,700 tons.

The water is believed to have leaked into the basement from the reactor pressure vessel and the container that houses the vessel.

OK physics/math people, help me out here. The first thing I did was calculate, based on that data, the total amount (In Curies) of radioactivity in the new water found.

I must have done something seriously wrong. The totals I get are unbelievable.

2.5 million becquerels of cesium-134 per cubic centimeter
The amount is estimated at 2,700 tons

2.5 million X 1000 = becquerels per liter, 2.5 x 109

2.5 x 109 X 1000 = becquerels per metric ton of water, 2.5 X 1012

x 2,700 = total becquerels of C-134 in the water, 6.750 x 1015

(assuming tons = metric tons)

Any problem with that? Then divide by 1 Ci = 3.7×1010

1.82432432 X105

You tell me, is that right? That's about 182,432 Curies of cesium-134, in just the basement.

To compare, Chernobyl released 54,000 Ci of cesium-134 and 1,100,000 Ci of cesium-137

So either I made a math mistake, or just in the one basement there is way way more cesium-134 than Chernobyl released. Can that be right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,565
robinson said:
From the article:
You tell me, is that right? That's about 182,432 Curies of cesium-134, in just the basement.

To compare, Chernobyl released 54,000 Ci of cesium-134 and 1,100,000 Ci of cesium-137

So either I made a math mistake, or just in the one basement there is way way more cesium-134 than Chernobyl released. Can that be right?

My math agrees with yours to an order of magnitude, so I don't think there's any problems with the arithmetic. However, I think the Chernobyl release was on the order of 1016 Bequerels for both Cs-134 and Cs-137 as opposed to 1015 in the reactor 1 basement. I still wouldn't want to go swimming there, though.

Page 9
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/5027173-rumHCE/5027173.pdf

Page 39
http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=136...psv=/ij/oecdjournals/16091914/v3n1/s1/p1l.idx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,566
1,100,000 Ci of cesium-137 = 1.1 x 1016 Bequerels

I used the C-134 figure because it came out much higher than the Chernobyl figure for C-134
 
  • #8,567
Aha! I think I found the problem. The figures I used for Chernobyl is the amount released over Europe, not the total amounts. So my math was correct. The problem was comparing amounts to the fallout from Chernobyl over Europe, which isn't the same thing as the total amount at all.
 
  • #8,568
Using the simple formula I derived http://www.bautforum.com/showthread...odine-in-nuclear-waste?p=1893658#post1893658", I get that the radioactivity of Cs-134 is about 1290 Ci/g, which means there's about 141 g of Cs-134 in those 2700 tons of water, which given that it's highly soluble in water isn't a strange amount.

That the levels hasn't changed much is actually an indication that it's a result of a single leak, not a continuing one, as the half life of Cs-134 is about 2 years, so if it had been continuously release there would have been a steady increase in the level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,569
Those are the official numbers for Chernobyl, I believe:

http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c02.html

54 PBq Cs-134 release in Chernobyl, there's 6 PBq Cs-134 in the water in Fukushima. So that's the problem. Your Cs-134 numbers for Chernobyl are wrong. But I see, you figured it out yourself... ^^

There's additionally ~8 PBq Cs-137. That's the size of the atmospheric release. The size of the Fukushima Cs fallout all over Japan, the Pacific and the world concentrated in 2700 tons of water. Yummy...
 
Last edited:
  • #8,570
clancy688 said:
54 PBq Cs-134 release in Chernobyl, there's 6 PBq Cs-134 in the water in Fukushima.

Actually there are around 12Pbq of Cesiums in one basement there. Which they just found.
 
  • #8,571
Do we not need to adjust the amount of water to include the rest of the site?
If there is about 100,000 tons of similarly contaminated water in the entire plant, that would suggest about 12Pbq *100,000/2700 = about 440 Pbqs of Cesium at Fukushima.
Seems that AREVA really has a job to do.
Has anyone any idea whether their selective precipitation techniques have a prayer of working on this minute quantity of cesium, ( about 0.05 gram/ton) from a salt water solution? They claimed 99.9% to 99.99% removal, but that seems just heroic to me, based on my long ago chemistry background.
 
  • #8,572
I have a couple questions:
• What is the current status of reactors 1-4?
• What techniques/work have nuclear engineers done to achieve this status?
• Are reactors 5 and 6 really worth mentioning relative to 1-4?
 
  • #8,573
Derpin said:
I have a couple questions:
• What is the current status of reactors 1-4?
• What techniques/work have nuclear engineers done to achieve this status?
• Are reactors 5 and 6 really worth mentioning relative to 1-4?
You ask some questions with potentially some very long answers ;) You might start here:
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1306898792P.pdf
or here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,574
jlduh said:
And N°3 is again rising at 219,7 °C. If the sensors work, then no doubt, this thing is alive and changing...

In fact, there has been a big surge again it seems on this temperature, at RPV Bellows seal, in reactor n°3:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/11053106_temp_data_3u-e.pdf

Any idea of what this could indicate, ads this is not the first time?

My idea is that they had trouble cooling during the tropical storm.
The main cooling agent is water turning to steam.
I think that a lot of steam recondensed.
They also reduced the amount of water injected before that.
Cooling is now returning to prestorm levels again
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,575
HenrikOlsen said:
That the levels hasn't changed much is actually an indication that it's a result of a single leak, not a continuing one, as the half life of Cs-134 is about 2 years, so if it had been continuously release there would have been a steady increase in the level.
Hmmm ... what didn't change? The total activity of the water in the basement or the activity per cm^3? If the latter was the case I would conclude quite the opposite.
 
  • #8,576
[The NISA] is asking TEPCO to secure new storage sites to which the contaminated water can be quickly transferred,
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_24.html

The water levels as of May 31st 7 AM JST reported on http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110531_01-j.pdf (as of May 19th 7 AM JST http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110519_03-j.pdf ) are :

unit 2 trench : OP + 3606 mm (OP + 3240 mm : May 19th 7 AM)
unit 3 trench : OP + 3706 mm (OP + 3360 mm : May 19th 7 AM)

unit 2 : (3606-3240)/(31-19)=30.5 mm/day
unit 3 : (3706-3360)/(31-19)=28.8 mm/day

The ground level near the pits is OP + 4000 mm : http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/f1-sv-20110323-j.pdf

So how many days are left until this level is reached ?

unit 2 : (4000-3606)/30.5=12.9 days ~ June 13th
unit 3 : (4000-3706)/28.8=10.2 days ~ June 10th

It was reported that work was undergone to fill the pits with concrete, but is it enough ?

Accumulated water maps have been released : http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110530_04-e.pdf

Water level in the basement of unit 1 reactor building has decreased by 6 mm between May 31st 5 PM and June 1st 7 AM, making people wonder where that water has gone : http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20110601/t10013249251000.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,577
jlduh said:
Any idea of what this could indicate, ads this is not the first time?

IMO the main feedwater line is broken and the core has no cooling now.

Maybe it's possible to calculate a raw core weight by the temperature rising rate and the calculated decay heat. At least if the result has no sense we will know that there is something else happening inside.
 
  • #8,578
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,579
elektrownik said:
What ? Unit 6 reactor building is floded ? How ?? I understand turbine building from tsunami, but reactor building ?
And 2m of water in unit 6 turbine building... But how, unit 5 turbine building is not so floaded like 6...

Yes, this is surprising. See also the discussion we had a few days ago :

~kujala~ said:
Unit #6 is leaking also:

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110519-1-2.pdf

Explanation #1: RPV is leaking.
Explanation #2: SFP is leaking.
Explanation #3: Waterproof systems are not working and groundwater is leaking into the reactor building.

The greatest danger lies in the explanation #3. If it's happening in the unit #6 it can also happen in the units #1 - #5. It water can come in it can also go out.

tsutsuji said:
What about #4 : Unit 6 hit and flooded by a tsunami ?

yakiniku said:
The water levels have been rising in (5 and) 6.

The company says water levels are also rising in the Number 5 and 6 turbine buildings.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/21_03.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,580
elektrownik said:

Thanks, it seems that they have again made corrections. This time to unit #4 and #2 SFP samples taken on April 12th and 16th. I am going here through #4 SFP values:

The original values were (April 12th):
I-131: 220 Bq/cm3 -> 220 000 Bq/l
Cs-134: 88 Bq/cm3 -> 88 000 Bq/l
cs-137: 93 Bq/cm3 -> 93 000 Bq/l

The corrected values are:
I-131: 130 000 Bq/l
Cs-134: 130 000 Bq/l
Cs-137: 140 000 Bq/l

The comparison of all samples taken in Bq/l:
Isotope: April 12th - April 29th - May 7th
I-131: 130 000 - 27 000 - 16 000
Cs-134: 130 000 - 49 000 - 56 000
Cs-137: 140 000 - 55 000 - 67 000

The values for Cs-134 and Cs-137 on May 7th are now 43 % and 48 % from the maximum values. I am eagerly waiting for them to take new samples from unit #4 SFP and also sample the unit #1 SFP. :bugeye:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,581
elektrownik said:
What ? Unit 6 reactor building is floded ? How ?? I understand turbine building from tsunami, but reactor building ?
And 2m of water in unit 6 turbine building... But how, unit 5 turbine building is not so floaded like 6...

If you followed the accodent very closely you might have remembered that when unit 6 basement water was discovered for the first time that TEPCO attributed this to groundwater penetrating the building.
 
  • #8,582
I have updated again my plots of reactor parameters Fukushima Daiichi units #1--#3:
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/Main.html

As I mentioned last time, I have added many data points from these TEPCo documents,
titled "Parameters for water and pressure Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 (revised)":
http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/syusei_level_pr_data_1u.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/syusei_level_pr_data_2u.pdf
http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/syusei_level_pr_data_3u.pdf

Today's version corrects several data errors (mine and TEPCo's), fixes a few broken links in the HTML pages, and adds a few more data. It now includes data from all NISA press releases "プラント関連パラメータ" ("Plant-Related Parameters") except for 129 to 134 (may 8 to 11), coming soon.

Besides the isolated errors above and the erratic behavior of several instruments, there are some disconcerting details in this data. For one thing, the absolute RPV pressures in unit #3, both the "A" and "B" readings, have been negative for a few days already. (The "A" reading is reported as minus 0.136 MPa relative to atmospheric pressure of about 0.101 MPa). So if you need to suck up a perfect vacuum, talk to TEPCo.

Moreover, there is no sign of the recalibration of the water level indicators of unit #1, that TEPCo has annouced a week or two ago. That recalibration supposedly showed that the water level was actually below minus 4.5 meters; but the NISA releases still give the incorrect number (minus 1.7 meters for #1).

On the other hand, one interesting thing that shows up in the new data is a spike in the unit #3 RPV pressure, just past midnight of apr/21. According to that data, in a few hours the pressure shoot up from 0.2 MPa (abs) to 11.6 MPa (abs) -- over the RPV's maximum design pressure -- then fell to nearly zero (abs; actually minus 0.500 MPa gauge, which should be minus 0.401 MPa absolute!), then recovered to about 0.150 MPa (abs), all in a few hours. The "black smoke" from unit #3 started soon thereafter. This jolt was missing from my previous plots because the data in the NISA releases happened to be measured before the up-spike (apr/20 16:00 = 0.254 MPa), halfway between the up- and down-spikes (apr/21 04:00 = 0.303 MPa) and after the down-spike (apr/21 12:15 = 0.142 MPa).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,583
High levels of strontium detected at Fukushima
[PLAIN said:
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_h01.html]Tokyo[/PLAIN] Electric Power Company says it took soil samples on May 9th at 3 locations about 500 meters from the No.1 and No.2 reactors and analyzed them.

The utility detected up to 480 becquerels of radioactive strontium 90 per kilogram of soil. That's about 100 times higher than the maximum reading recorded in Fukushima Prefecture following atmospheric nuclear tests carried out by foreign countries during the Cold War era.

TEPCO reported detecting 2,800 becquerels of strontium 89 per kilogram of soil at the same location.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,584
AntonL said:
If you followed the accodent very closely you might have remembered that when unit 6 basement water was discovered for the first time that TEPCO attributed this to groundwater penetrating the building.

This is TEPCO BS on 99%, because:
Unit 1,2,3 are floding by water which is injected to cool down cores
Unit 1,2,3 water level and % of floded reactor building parts is not so big like in unit 6
Unit 5 which is not far from unit 6 is not so heavy flooded
How so much ground water can enter reactor building which should be sealed ?
How any system of unit 6 can work if reactor and turbine building are flooded ?
 
Last edited:
  • #8,585
Jorge Stolfi said:
Moreover, there is no sign of the recalibration of the water level indicators of unit #1, that TEPCo has annouced a week or two ago. That recalibration supposedly showed that the water level was actually below minus 4.5 meters; but the NISA releases still give the incorrect number (minus 1.7 meters for #1).

It is there, under the A sensor column in table you can see "DS" (Down scale) and this mean -5m or more from top of fuel
 
  • #8,586
elektrownik said:
What ? Unit 6 reactor building is floded ? How ?? I understand turbine building from tsunami, but reactor building ?
And 2m of water in unit 6 turbine building... But how, unit 5 turbine building is not so floaded like 6...



http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110531e19.pdf <- radiation data from unit 4 and 2 sfp

You are very right, this is amazing...

Until now we heard that Tepco was pumping some water out of TURBINE building of N°5 and 6, an operation that whas explained to be already conducted as routine before the tsunami but stopped because of the tsunami, and then started again. We concluded that these T/B must haven been under groundwater and that they were obliged to pump to keep them dry, and that maybe this has to be increased because of groundwater increased level due to tsunami (this was an hypothesis). So normally, nothing really bad...

But on this map, it appears that there is water also in basements of reactors buildings N°5 and N°6, in areas that are important for safety because that's were a lot of the alternate cooling systems are! (I remember that N°5 and N°6 were stopped for maintenance if not wrong... fortunately! otherwise they couldn't probably maintain this cooling over time switching between SFP and reactor...)

This is typically some "Tepco language": if you look at Units 1 to 6, the documents indicate each and every time T/B which is Turbine Building, but they show maps for T/B AND R/B.


Then when they indicate that there is "100m3 total in T/B" for N°5 and "4000m3 in T/B" for N°6, what do we have to understand?

Until now we understood something very stupid: "4000m3 in T/B" was meaning for us, stupid guys with no Tepco language knowledge, that this water was in... Turbine Building of course! But in fact, where is it? It shows R/B and T/B, but with this title: "Accumulated water map in Unit X T/B"!

Let's play dices to decide what to interpret...

The big question is really to know how this water got there, in an area that is CRITICAL for safety control of the reactors :

A) If this water comes from the tsunami, this is very scary, because this means that there could have been a problem with cooling system failure even without power black out, due to flooded equipement in R/B.

B) If this water doesn't come from tsunami, then where does it come from? From underground water? This is scary again with safety equipements here. From reactor leaking??? Was it damaged during earthquake as a matter of fact?

Is it related to what we mentionned some weeks ago already in the parameters for Unit 5 and 6, where the water levels are always varying in the core?

Personnaly i still think this can be explained by the alternate system for cooling which if i understand well has to be switched between two things, SFP and reactor (correct me if wrong), creating this pattern with teeth in Temps, and also possibly explaining water level variation by more or less evaporation inside the core. But maybe this intrusion of water in R/B is an explanation why some cooling systems are not fully operational?

Again, this raises a lot of questions and mysteries. This is not what i would call a "normal" cold shutdown.

This brings also the questions of general safety, even "beyond design basis" which is the nice way engineers use to describe mess they didn't anticipate... We were talking about placing some critical equipement at a suffcient height to avoid flooding, but what about these electrical systems that are it seems now in R/B rooms with substantial level of water in them (and they pumped already good volumes!). What are they going to do to change the design to avoid flooding possibilities of these areas?

I've found surprising, to say the least, one image released by Tepco some weeks ago, showing many many tanks to store the "basement" water close to N°5 and N°6: huuuuhhh, so many tanks? If i find it I'll post it...

I think there is a new mystery in this Daichi plant, with these N°5 and N°6 reactors, where I suspect there is more than assumed. AGAIN.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,587
This is not possible ground water can't flood Reactor building so quick look on unit 1,2,3 thay are flooded but not so much, but this flooding is due water which is injected to cores not from ground water, reactor building should be sealed, this is REACTOR building not swimming pool, ground water could leak to building but not in this amount or maybe earthquake create cracks in reactor 6 building ? this could increase flooding speed

Interesting page 9 is for upper part, not torus part, which also should be flooded, it should be 4000m3 in R/B not T/B, and T/B is 9500m3 so there is 13500m3 of water in T/B and R/B for unit 6
And unit 5 T/B and R/B is only 300m3 ?!
13500/300=45 times more water in unit 6 than in unit 5...
15200m3 for unit 4 T/B and R/B

Wait there is something wrong, unit 4 T/B is 100% flooded with 1m of water and they say that it is 9600m3, unit 2 is flooded only in 3 places with 1,2m and 13000m3 ?
 
Last edited:
  • #8,588
Bloomberg is reporting radiation of 5 million becquerels of Cesium 137 per square meter 25 kilometers away from the Fukushima Plant. 5 million per square meter... hmmm. I think somebody got some zeroes mixed up.

From Bloomberg:
Soil samples showed one site with radiation from Cesium-137 exceeding 5 million becquerels per square meter about 25 kilometers to the northwest of the Fukushima plant, according to Kawata’s study.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-30/japan-risks-chernobyl-like-dead-zone-as-fukushima-soil-radiation-soars.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,589
I don't think so. During the course of the accident, there were several reports of Cs137 ground contamination in the magnitude of 10^6.
 
  • #8,590
Rive said:
IMO the main feedwater line is broken and the core has no cooling now.

Maybe it's possible to calculate a raw core weight by the temperature rising rate and the calculated decay heat. At least if the result has no sense we will know that there is something else happening inside.

If that were the case then how do you explain their ability to bring the last large leap in temperatures under control during may? Especially as they did this by switching from fire extinguisher line to feedwater line, and pumping at a higher rate using both lines for a while.

In any case the recent increases in temperature have not been so dramatic and consistent across many sensors, and TEPCO are still gradually reducing the flow rate through the feedwater line (now down to 11.5 m3/h from a peak of 13.5m3/h).

So at this point although I think reactor 3 temperatures should be kept a close eye on, and further things may well happen, I don't see a big story here yet. Especially as RPV bellows seal temperature has spiked to a high value in the past without other temperatures following.
 
  • #8,591
Gary7 said:
Bloomberg is reporting radiation of 5 million becquerels of Cesium 137 per square meter 25 kilometers away from the Fukushima Plant. 5 million per square meter... hmmm. I think somebody got some zeroes mixed up.

From Bloomberg:
Soil samples showed one site with radiation from Cesium-137 exceeding 5 million becquerels per square meter about 25 kilometers to the northwest of the Fukushima plant, according to Kawata’s study.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-30/japan-risks-chernobyl-like-dead-zone-as-fukushima-soil-radiation-soars.html

Hummm, returning there within 3 years from now, when we see how the situation at the plant is "stabilized" right now, this is interesting dream...

Love also the "nature park" around Tchernobyl. Words are great and cheap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,592
elektrownik said:
reactor building should be sealed, this is REACTOR building not swimming pool, ground water could leak to building but not in this amount or maybe earthquake create cracks in reactor 6 building ? this could increase flooding speed

Waterproof systems are not bullet-proof, in fact they are quite fragile and can become damaged even by aging.
The concrete itself is not water-proof but it slows significantly the flow of water.
Waterproof systems are usually build inside the buildings, so you have first the layer of concrete and then on top of it is the actual waterproof system.
An earthquake can easily damage the waterproof systems, they can even be damaged completely without the earthquake, just by "becoming old".
But is it possible that the earthquake could also have made a crack in the concrete? Then you could have a big leak, because water could go right through the concrete + the waterproof system. There would be nothing between.
What I am foreseeing, the concrete is still okay but the waterproof systems have failed. In this case there is a flow of water from inside/out or outside/in but the concrete will slow down the flow of water. For how much, I don't know.

To me the unit #6 seems to act like there is a flow of water outside in. Groundwater level is high and when they pump water out, new water is coming in. If this would be true, this would basically continue as long as the groundwater levels start decreasing. There is already tsunami waters and now they have new rain... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #8,593
SteveElbows said:
So at this point although I think reactor 3 temperatures should be kept a close eye on, and further things may well happen, I don't see a big story here yet. Especially as RPV bellows seal temperature has spiked to a high value in the past without other temperatures following.

Humm, personnaly i see some visual global correlation between temps on this graphic, don't you?

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/11053106_temp_data_3u-e.pdf

The last large increase in temps was i think stopped when they injected boron (or MORE boron?) in N°3, at least it has been discussed about that here.

Is it possible that, assuming some local re-criticalities, the level of boron could explain these varitions of temps and heat? Is boron consumpted, or maybe diluted by rainwater?

This is just an hypothesis to try to understand the specific pattern of this N°3 reactor concerning temps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,594
It just strikes me as odd since the opening paragraph talks about 1.48 million becquerels, and then the article almost casually tosses in the 5 million becquerels 25 kms away from the plant. I couldn't find anything in Japanese that mentions this reading. I sent the reporters a query to see if the numbers were accurate. Will see what they have to say.

Now back to your regular programming.
 
  • #8,595
Gary7 said:
It just strikes me as odd since the opening paragraph talks about 1.48 million becquerels, and then the article almost casually tosses in the 5 million becquerels 25 kms away from the plant. I couldn't find anything in Japanese that mentions this reading. I sent the reporters a query to see if the numbers were accurate. Will see what they have to say.

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_pr...valuation_Dosimetrique_Fukushima_16052011.pdf

Page 13 and following.

Up to 30 million Bq/m².Edit: I nearly got an heart attack when I saw that Borek replied to the thread - I suddenly realized that contamination hasn't anything to with technical issues and thus fits better to the contamination & consequences thread... ^^;
So I feared I'd get a rebuke again. Luckily I got spared this time. But it's still better to outsource these topics into the contamination thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #8,596
jlduh said:
Love also the "nature park" around Tchernobyl. Words are great and cheap.

If you stick to facts, this is one of the best places for animals in Europe:

http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chornobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm

See also:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm
 
  • #8,597
IAEA loses all credibility today.

Japan’s response to the nuclear accident has been exemplary, particularly illustrated by the dedicated, determined and expert staff working under exceptional circumstances.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-01/iaea-says-japan-underestimated-risk-to-nuclear-plants-from-tsunami-quakes.html

When the IAEA team arrived at Fukushima last week, I had no doubt at all that they would give their blessing to the ongoing recovery work there. It is a difficult task and some credit is in order.

But I had no idea they would rubber-stamp their approval of simply everything TEPCO and the Japanese nuclear regulators have done to date. So I guess now we can look forward to the pictures of Mike Weightman posing on the megafloat later in the week.

It's mind-boggling that they have virtually no criticism whatsoever to level at the way the situation has been handled thus far.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,598
The NRC, IRSN, Greenpeace and the IAEA have all reported readings ~5,000,000 Beq/m2.

I first noticed this on 24th March: see https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3207934&postcount=1075"

At the beginning of May, the NRC released this:

5uvVU.png


also see:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...581055&spn=0.761327,1.647949&z=9&source=embed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8,599
MiceAndMen said:
IAEA loses all...

In this case I don't want to know what wouldn't be "exemplary" :eek: :biggrin:
 
  • #8,600
Borek said:
If you stick to facts, this is one of the best places for animals in Europe:

Any place left alone by humans is probably good for animals. It doesn't mean that the animals are unaffected by the contamination at Chernobyl:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenergy/memo/nps/uc7402.htm

Animal studies in areas near the Chernobyl accident show increased levels of chromosome abnormalities and foetal deaths even after 22 generations. This has been attributed to transgenerational genomic instability effects.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
49K
Replies
2K
Views
447K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
763
Views
272K
Replies
38
Views
16K
Replies
4
Views
11K
Back
Top