Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

Click For 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.
  • #2,191
curious11 said:
Well they certainly aren't near the sfp. Do we have a schematic to overlay on this aerial photo? Maybe they're other elements used to space-out/organise the actual rods; ie benign?

I've been searching all day for an overhead plan of one of these reactors with the different floors schematicked. (if that's a word)
I still think it's likely that they had loads of 'FAIRLY COLD' rods that they just thought they'd store in the nearest pool of water, I mean no-one's going to know... unless there's a massive Tsunami next week!
You know what industry is like.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2,192
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2011/03/Cause_of_the_high_Cl38_Radioactivity.pdf"

Conclusions

So we are left with the uncomfortable realization that the cause of the Cl-38 concentrations is not due to seawater
intercepting neutrons from natural spontaneous fission of the used nuclear fuel. There has to be another reason.

Assuming that the TEPCO measurements are correct, the results of this analysis seem to indicate that we cannot
discount the possibility that there was another strong neutron source during the time that the workers were sending
seawater into the core of reactor #1. However, since we don’t know the details of the configuration of the core
and how the seawater came in contact with the fuel it is difficult to be certain. Given these uncertainties
it is nonetheless important for TEPCO to be aware of the possibility of transient criticalities when work is being done;
otherwise workers would be in considerably greater danger than they already are when trying to working to contain
the situation. A transient criticality could explain the observed 13 “neutron beams” reported by Kyodo news agency
(see above). This analysis is not a definitive proof but it does mean that we cannot rule localized criticality out
and the workers should take the necessary precautions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,193
very interesting link thanks.
Will have to read it tomorrow.
 
  • #2,194
artax said:
I've been searching all day for an overhead plan of one of these reactors with the different floors schematicked. (if that's a word)
I still think it's likely that they had loads of 'FAIRLY COLD' rods that they just thought they'd store in the nearest pool of water, I mean no-one's going to know... unless there's a massive Tsunami next week!
You know what industry is like.

Or. they;re just control rods... ?

http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_lo_res.html?id=841700465"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,195
jensjakob said:
TCups, I can't find the "fuelrods" on the new hi-res images...

Can you?

If they are gone, someone knows what they were...

That looks like a bunch of 3/8 inch stainless tubing to me. There's typically miles of that stuff in a plant, used for instrumentation.
 
  • #2,196
curious11 said:
Sorry if this subject has already been put to bed. I thought I'd use the latest hi-res images to locate the position of the suspected sf-rods from an earlier video.

So, here they are. Any idea what the feature hi-lighted might be?

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33787&stc=1&d=1301584597

@Curious

You have indeed located the rod-like objects in the latest areal imagery. This was taken from the first helicopter fly over, and by way of disclosure, "Photoshop'ed" to correct color levels, contrast, and sharpness

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/903a9527.jpg

And here is my best SWAG at the layout of the top floor, see post #2089

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33731&d=1301513587

which puts the "rod-like structures west of the location of the equipment pool, I believe. I am not sure of the confirmation of my layout in the second image, however.

gmax137 said:
That looks like a bunch of 3/8 inch stainless tubing to me. There's typically miles of that stuff in a plant, used for instrumentation.

Yes, but not anywhere else in a fairly tight cluster that I can see. And in the midst of explosive destruction, they seem awfully rigid -- not bent like lots of the rebar seen in other images.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,197
Joe Neubarth said:
T, I live in southern California. I have been through hundreds and hundreds of 5.0 earthquakes just a hundred miles away that I could not even feel. Distance definitely dampens the effect. Now, if a building is built upon fill or soft soil (clay and water) a building fifty miles from the quake can rock and roll and collapse if it is not structurally sound.

A 5.0 earthquake can bring down power lines if it unleashes boulders from a hillside and they take out the electrical grid transmission tower. Anything like that can happen.

The biggest issue, of course in Japan was that their grid fell apart with all of the nuclear power plants on the north side of that large island going to shutdown mode (SCRAMS) during a part of the day when demand was high. Circuit breakers open and whole regions are without power.

Joe:

I draw your attention to Astronuc's earlier post at 1989. At the time, I was not smart enough to understand what Astronuc was telling us. The lateral acceleration recorded at unit 3 exceeded the design maximum for lateral ground motion acceleration in the east-west axis, ie, in the direction of propagation of the energy from the epicenter of the quake.

Quoting in part, from Astronuc's reference source:

"At Daiichi there is still no data for units 1, 2 and 5, but available figures put the maximum acceleration as 507 gal from east to west at unit 3. The design basis for this was 441 gal. Other readings were below design basis, although east-west readings at unit 6 of 431 gal approached the design basis of 448 gal."

I am also informed that 1 gal = 1 cm/sec2 and 500 gal = 1 m/sec2

Astronuc said:
I've been wondering about the ground motion and accelerations. Apparently not all the data are collected and/or processed, but from WNN,

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Fukushima_faced_14-metre_tsunami_2303113.html

No mention of unit 4.

From - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf18.html
 
Last edited:
  • #2,198
Thanks FRED for these excellent quality pictures, taken it seems the 20th and the 24 th of March by a Canon KissX4 (which is in fact the 550D in Japan) and a Canon 5D MarkII (based on the exifs of the pictures... i practice photography so it's an habit to check that).

I guess these are the ones take by the Japanese Air Service in Nigata with the small plane used also for volcanoes. Where did you find them by the way?

As everybody i started to review them in detail. On buiding 3, i have something which ressembles to the cover of the pressure vessel, on this capture:

http://www.netimago.com/image_184641.html

extracted from this full res image:

http://www.netimago.com/image_184667.html

Do you see this big yellow round part which is right behind the pillar n°4, right in the middle of the building from this view taken from the East side?

I've been at first in favor of the theory of the concrete plus being ejected by the huge vertical explosion, but looking at the top and at the way the explosions precisely happened on the video, I rejected this idea. Now i see this picture and I wondering what this part is, right here...

And then, where would have gone the big concrete plug? Just moved sideways maybe?

I'm in the position of really saying that there hasn't been big ejections at the vertical of this point above the reactor well. But maybe displacement?

Could it be that there may be a second cover that was on the top floor for maintenance reasons for example?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,199
83729780 said:
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2011/03/Cause_of_the_high_Cl38_Radioactivity.pdf"



Some time ago I brought up the issue of injecting sea water into the reactor for cooling sake. At that time all of the articles that I read (perhaps fifty or sixty) mentioned injection of sea water into the core and never mentioned boron treatment. Our moderator was kind enough to copy several that were available to him. Obviously, he was reading the right articles. Then I noticed a post with the boron information struck through and then an article that said they injected the boron AFTER the sea water.

If so I am quite certain they managed to flush enough boron from the reactor so as to ensure an increase in the thermal neutrons available for fission, and probably created a temporary (transient) criticality in the high energy pulsating blob that used to be the reactor core.

There is no way of knowing, of course, short of data telemetry that would have recorded the increase in all types of radiation at the scene near the time they were injecting sea water that was not already mixed with boron. That most certainly will account for the oddities associated with Reactor One.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,200
We've been taking some air samples here in Finland, with preliminary results suggesting Cs-134/137 activity ratios of the order of 1,05. Having no idea of what kind of core design they are using at Fukushima, we made some rough calculations of isotopic concentrations of "typical" BWR assembly at different void histories (see example below).

What we're hoping is to try to see, if it would be possible to estimate the extent of core damage based on isotopic ratios of nuclides from different samples. Like, if it would seem that the measured isotopic ratios correspond to the void history in the top of the core rather than the core average, or the burnup in the most powerful assemblies vs. core average etc.

I wonder if anybody else is doing anything similar, and if someone would have better information on the fuel/reload strategy used in the accident reactors.
 

Attachments

  • #2,201
TCups said:
Joe:

I
I am also informed that 1 gal = 1 cm/sec2 and 500 gal = 1 m/sec2

PLEASE EDIT your post

1 gal = 1cm.sec^2
500 gal = 5 m/sec^2

then I delete this message
 
  • #2,202
gmax137 said:
That looks like a bunch of 3/8 inch stainless tubing to me. There's typically miles of that stuff in a plant, used for instrumentation.
It does not to me.

I see rumpled elongated narrow sheets that were made that way by physical shock, like from that explosion.
They appear to be (approximate guess) ten times to fifteen times wider than they are thick.
For them to have taken on such a rumpled shape their substance must have some malleability, much like lead.
What ever fits that description is what it is.

I think they are fuel rods that have been through one hell of an explosion.But what the hell, I am not a nuclear engineer. I just go by what my eyes tell me.
 
  • #2,203
I post here a series of screenshots of the video showing the explosion of reactor 3. Take the stack vent (the white "antenna") as a reference, it is perfectly aligned with the left edge of the reactor N°3 building.

http://www.netimago.com/image_184705.html

Ok,

FIRST EXPLOSION or FIRST TWO EXPLOSIONS?

a) BIG ORANGE FLASH AT THE LEFT SIDE TOP OF THE REACTOR. This is South side. So it starts with probably an H2 explosion in the top rop, close to SFP.

b) BIG DARK GREY BURST ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BUILDING (North)
http://www.netimago.com/image_184715.html

AND THEN (SAME EXPLOSION OR A SECOND OR THIRD ONE?) BIG VERTICAL DARK GREY BURST EMERGING VERY CLOSE TO THE REFERENCE "ANTENNA" (then it moves parallel to the right of course because of the wind), SO MORE ON THE LEFT SIZE OF THE BUILDING (NORTH)

http://www.netimago.com/image_184724.html

Then the vertical grey burst continues to rise very high in the sky (i estimated at around 500m based on the fact that the reactor buiding is around 50 meters high). But it's difficult to see where are the big chunks at the top.

http://www.netimago.com/image_184731.html

http://www.netimago.com/image_184733.html

For reference the complete video is here:


I put also the Hi Res pic from the top of the reactor to try to correlate what the explosion says with what the debris can say:

TOP VIEW: (North is right side, South left side)

http://www.netimago.com/image_184741.html

FROM WEST TOWARDS EAST (North on the left side, South at right)
http://www.netimago.com/image_184742.html

FROM EAST TOWARDS WEST (South on the left side, North at right)

http://www.netimago.com/image_184743.html

PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS: to me pictures of the debris correlate with pictures of the explosions (what a scoop hey!). On the south side at the top we see the place of the first flash above the pool, with a big hole and around the metal is heavily bent. On the North west side, this has been the place of the big vertical burst: heavy destruction of the building, with some holes still visible from the bottom. The metal structure of the roof which stays in the middle seems to have been displaced towards the south by the vertical burst. The south side of reactor n°2 has been crippled by the lateral debris projected by the lateral burst on the North side at N°3. We can also see that Building n°3 is more heavily damaged on its west side than on its east side (one level more still there).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,205
jlduh said:
I post here a series of screenshots of the video showing the explosion of reactor 3. Take the stack vent (the white "antenna") as a reference, it is perfectly aligned with the left edge of the reactor N°3 building.

jlduh:
Sorry sir. The thumbnails you post, at least on my browser, are not linked to the full resolution images. All I am getting is thumbnail views.
 
  • #2,206
Has anyone seen the stills lifted from this video that seems to show the top of a reactor vessel sitting at a 45 degree angle?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,207
english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/82390.html said:
Groundwater at nuclear plant 'highly' radiation-contaminated: TEPCO
TOKYO, April 1, Kyodo

More signs of serious radiation contamination in and near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
plant were detected Thursday, with the latest data finding groundwater containing radioactive
iodine 10,000 times the legal threshold and the concentration of radioactive iodine-131 in
nearby seawater rising to the highest level yet.

Radioactive material was confirmed from groundwater for the first time since the March 11 quake
and tsunami hit the nuclear power plant on the Pacific coast, knocking out the reactors' key cooling
functions. An official of the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said, ''We're aware this is an
extremely high figure.''

The contaminated groundwater was found from around the No. 1 reactor's turbine building, although
the radiation level of groundwater is usually so low that it cannot be measured.

Japanese authorities were also urged to consider taking action over radioactive contamination outside
the 20-kilometer evacuation zone around the plant, as the International Atomic Energy Agency said
readings from soil samples collected in the village of Iitate, about 40 km from the plant,
exceeded its criteria for evacuation.

The authorities denied that the seawater and soil contamination posed an immediate threat to human
health, but the government said it plans to enhance radiation data monitoring around the plant on the
Pacific coast, about 220 km northeast of Tokyo.

According to the government's nuclear safety agency, the radioactive iodine-131 at a concentration
of 4,385 times the maximum level permitted under law has been detected in a seawater sample
collected Wednesday afternoon near the plant, exceeding the previous high recorded the day before.

In Tuesday's sample, the concentration level was 3,355 times the maximum legal limit.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, acknowledged there
is a possibility that radiation is continuing to leak into the sea, adding, ''We must check that (possibility) well.''

He reiterated that there are no immediate health concerns as fishing is not being conducted in the
designated evacuation zone stretching 20 km from the plant and radioactive materials will be
diluted by the time seafood is consumed by people.

Still, the nuclear regulatory body said it has decided to add another three areas located 15 km offshore for monitoring.

Tokyo Electric said it is likely that the high level of contamination in seawater has been caused by water
that has been in contact with nuclear fuel or reactors, but how it flowed to the sea remains unknown.

The No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 reactors at the plant are believed to have suffered damage to their cores,
possibly releasing radioactive substances, while the fuel rods of the No. 4 reactor kept in a spent fuel pool
are also believed to have been exposed at one point, as the reactors lost cooling functions after the March 11 quake and tsunami.

In Vienna on Wednesday, Denis Flory, IAEA deputy director general and head of the agency's nuclear safety
and security department, said readings from soil samples collected in Iitate between March 18 and March 26
''indicate that one of the IAEA operational criteria for evacuation is exceeded (there).''

In response to the IAEA, Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Thursday the government may
implement measures, if necessary, such as urging people living in the area to evacuate, if it is found that
the contaminated soil will have a long-term effect on human health.

Nishiyama said at a press conference in the afternoon that the agency's rough estimates have shown
there is no need for people in Iitate to evacuate immediately under criteria set by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan.

''The radiation dose of a person who was indoors for 16 hours and outdoors for eight hours (
and continued such a lifestyle) would be about 25 millisieverts, which is about half the level
which requires evacuation based on the commission's criteria,'' he said.

The commission explained that domestic criteria are based on measurements at radiation in the air, and not the soil.

In another effort to prevent radioactive dust from being dispersed from the plant, where masses of
debris are strewn as a result of explosions, Tokyo Electric initially planned to conduct a test
spraying of a water-soluble resin on Thursday, but postponed the plan due to rain.

An official said rain would have slowed down the work and made it difficult to gauge the effects of the resin spraying.

The utility firm known as TEPCO is considering when to conduct the work, at the south and west sides
of the No. 4 reactor. A total of 60,000 liters will be sprayed over a period of two weeks.

TEPCO also tried to remove contaminated water filling up some of the reactors' turbine buildings and
tunnel-like trenches connected to them. But given the large amount of water, authorities
are having difficulty finding places to store it.

TEPCO has been pouring massive amounts of water into the reactors and spent nuclear
fuel pools at the plant as a stopgap measure to cool them down, because serious damage
to fuel rods from overheating could lead to the release of enormous amounts of
radioactive materials into the environment.

However, the measure is believed to be linked to the possible leak of radiation-contaminated
water from the reactors, where fuel rods have partially melted.

Removal of the water at the turbine buildings is believed to be essential to restoring the
vital functions to stably cool down the reactors and the spent nuclear fuel pools.

On Thursday afternoon, a ship provided by U.S. forces carrying fresh water to cool
down the reactors docked on the coast of the plant site to help the mission of water injection.

==Kyodo

each day - from bad to worse
 
  • #2,208
rmattila said:
We've been taking some air samples here in Finland, with
I wonder if anybody else is doing anything similar, and if someone would have better information on the fuel/reload strategy used in the accident reactors.

I am also interested in
 
  • #2,209
I've attached one such still image to this post.
 
  • #2,210
JustGuessing said:
Has anyone seen the stills lifted from this video that seems to show the top of a reactor vessel sitting at a 45 degree angle?



I have seen the video, but I am far from convinced that the plug is 45º askew from the top of the reactor containment at Unit 3.

It was not the overhead crane that fell in the SFP3, it was the fuel handling equipment.

The steam may be venting from a slot-like structure (the fuel transfer chute) on the north side of the SFP3

I believe these may be the stills from the video in question (my screen captures). Please correct me if not so.

Question for someone who knows:
Is the reactor plug (or the segments that make up the reactor plug) held in place only by gravity when the reactor is operating?
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2011-03-31 at 1.11.12 PM.jpg
    Screen shot 2011-03-31 at 1.11.12 PM.jpg
    39.5 KB · Views: 502
  • Screen shot 2011-03-31 at 1.10.18 PM.jpg
    Screen shot 2011-03-31 at 1.10.18 PM.jpg
    28.6 KB · Views: 520
  • Screen shot 2011-03-31 at 1.09.51 PM.jpg
    Screen shot 2011-03-31 at 1.09.51 PM.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 502
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,211
To Justguessing:

the top cover of the pressure vessel (big and yellow) shown in this video is the one of reactor No4 and there is nothing abnormal to see it here because the reactor was on maintenance, so the top cover was removed with no fuel in the core. I was talking about reactor No3 where i have the impression to see something ressembling strangely to a cover of pressure vessel."the top cover was removed with no fuel in the core" did i say?

(well, are we sure that there was no fuel in the core at No4 by the way? We know that it was down but if my understanding of operations is right, when refuelling they just change maybe one third of the fuel, no?

Could it be possible that there was still fuel physically in the open core when the accident happened? So in this case this fuel may be in the same situation than in the other reactor with a decay rate much more advanced of course, because shut down before tsunami. IS IT POSSIBLE? Then of course it would have been fully under the water at the moment of the tsunami but then what happened after if water leaked from pool? It could have been hot too, don't you think? Could this explain why there is so much damage on building No4, even at the low stages of the building? Didn't we conclude to quickly that the reactor was OFF while some fuel was still inside?


TCUPS: try with an other browser maybe, it works perfectly here (don't know for other members?).
 
Last edited:
  • #2,212
TCups said:
It was not the overhead crane that fell in the SFP3, it was the fuel handling equipment.

The photos you posted seem to show an empty, or nearly empty SFP. The high-res photos that recently came out look like the fuel handling equipment went over the north side of the building. But I don't see any evidence of equipment going into the pool. Maybe I am looking at it wrong.

EDIT: or maybe the green color I am seeing in the SFP is the handling equipment. I saw some other green equipment around the north side and thought that was it.
 
  • #2,213
It is this grab with the time code 10:12:11 I'm interested in.
 

Attachments

  • Plant_001.jpg
    Plant_001.jpg
    24.4 KB · Views: 586
  • #2,214
JustGuessing said:
It is this grab with the time code 10:12:11 I'm interested in.

I think that is some of the normal testing or equipment rigs. Someone posted a shot a while back of the equipment floor from the past and there were lots of these big round things around the floor which I assume are different rigs for diagnostics or repair, or something.

EDIT: here is the post with the photo of a plant floor: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3210916&postcount=1344
 
Last edited:
  • #2,215
The top right corner of the 10:12:11 image look like the rings of the vessel to me.
 

Attachments

  • japanbeforerobotsweremen2.jpg
    japanbeforerobotsweremen2.jpg
    76.6 KB · Views: 1,295
  • #2,216
TCUPS I try to reload the picture showing the "something like a cover pressure vessel in reactor 3" through the "attach" function of the forum, maybe it's better for you?

Ok it's attached as thumbnail but it's smaller than my original...
 

Attachments

  • image026.jpg
    image026.jpg
    59.7 KB · Views: 478
  • #2,217
jlduh said:
TCUPS I try to reload the picture showing the "something like a cover pressure vessel in reactor 3" through the insert image function of the forum, maybe it's better for you?

I think that is part of the overhead crane system. The two large beams of the crane are directly below this feature (and the feature seems to be right in the middle of the beams - maybe it is part of the drive motor assembly of the crane).
 
  • #2,218
There have been comparisons of the Titanic to this disaster. Both were 1 in 10,000,000 chance of happening. Both had safeguards that exceded all contingencies. Both relied on seawater pumps to neutralize the damage. Some people were locked in their quarters while here, some people are told to stay in their homes. Both were Icons of technoloy, science, and power. Titanic had a band to calm the nerves, here we have what? What we have learned is that given enough time, mother nature will throw us a great big curveball. And just like the bugs bunny cartoon, we whiff at it 3 times before it hits the catchers mit.
 
  • #2,219
All:
The overhead crane was reported to have fallen through the north side of the top of Bldg 3 and then down, crushing the adjacent building below.

The fuel handling equipment is green in color and, I believe, only shuttles over the SFP and core service access whereas the crane goes from side to side of the building, east to west. The crane is used to hoist the plug structure(s) from the primary containment and to lift the drywell cap (the big yellow-orange cap seen sitting out in Bldg 4). The fuel handling equipment is only for lifting the new and spent fuel rod assemblies. The fuel handling equipment never lifts the fuel rods out of the water. They are transferred under water, through the fuel handling chute and into the reactor while submersed.

It has been my conjecture (unconfirmed), from early on, that if a blast occurred in the primary containment of Unit 3, the "weak spot" would be the fuel handling chute gate, not the massive cap. The seals on the gate were pneumatic and powered by electric pumps (no electricity at the time of explosion).

A blast of hot gasses venting explosively through the fuel handling gate would enter the SFP, possibly vaporizing water in the pool and leading to a secondary steam explosion, or possibly igniting a hydrogen blast, as occurred in Unit 1, or both. The depth of the SFP3 would act like an acoustic lens, to focus the force of any blast occurring from the SFP3 upward. Hence, a two component explosion, fireball out the south side, vertical blast upward over the SFP3, not at the plug, and a secondary blast of hydrogen + oxygen causing a blow out of the building

The venting steam would be coming from the gate/chute area, under the plug. The "stuff" in the SFP3 may be the fuel handling equipment on top of the rods.
 
  • #2,220
TCups said:
All:
The overhead crane was reported to have fallen through the north side of the top of Bldg 3 and then down, crushing the adjacent building below.

If you look at the high-res photos posted earlier, there is an overhead shot of #3 that shows two large beams running east to west, approximately in the middle of the building. These appear to be a meter or more wide and they are parallel just like one would expect in an overhead crane. It could be something else but it sure looks like a crane to me. But I think the rest of your scenario seems very plausible to me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
49K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2K ·
60
Replies
2K
Views
451K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
20K
  • · Replies 763 ·
26
Replies
763
Views
274K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
16K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K