Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

[geb.es]

I had thought that the original blast at Bldg 3 is on the SOUTH end of the building. The damage on the north end sends stuff crashing downward. If the blast photo is taken from inland, looking eastward, then the blast is to the right, southward. Two towers bracket Bldg 4, on the blast (south) side of Bldg 3. A large hunk of debris comes down on the north side of Bldg 3. But the more I look, I can't make that orientation fit with the towers. Someone help me here.

The video of the blast is taken from the southwest. We see two walls of each reactor building, the south wall in the sun to the right, and the west wall in the shade, to the left. The middle antenna separates one from the other the other in the picture. That is, we see it aligned with the south-west edge of the building. Is that of any help?

 

[hoyrylollaaja]

Reports of a "blue flashing light." Not sure where they got this news or if there's any proof.

This is worrying news, no because of the 'blue light', but nothing to back that news up. No photos, no video and source is unknown. Newscorps are in need of more scandalous headlines as things slow down at site due TESCO and their info-output.

 

[rhody]

Regarding the blue flashing light, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation" perhaps ? Is it possible to be created intermittently as claimed in the News Report ?

Rhody...

 

[Astronuc]

interesting perspective

"socialwaves.blog.youphil.com/media/02/02/1227006032.pdf"[/URL][/QUOTE] There should be another page. The one cited is missing several plants, such as Kyushu's Sendai, Chugoku's Shimane, Hokuriku's Shika, Tohoku's Onagawa and Higashidori, JAPCo's Tokai Daini and Tsuruga, KEPCO's Ohi and Takahama, and Hokkaido's Tomari plants.

Chubu's Hamaoka Units 1 and 2 have been shutdown and are being decommissioned, while preparation for Unit 6, which will replace Units 1 and 2, is underway.

 

[|Fred]

Here, reproduced from an ORNL report which itself used an original GE plant layout diagram is a new illustration for this blog. This is a BWR plant with a Mk I containment like at Fukushima Daiichi, but which shows a turbine building and typical layout. Now, this overall plant layout shown has the turbine building rotated 90 degrees as compared with Fukushima Daiichi. On the plant shown below, the turbine building is "end on" to the reactor building. However, this might help some folks who are wishing they could at least somehow picture what's going on inside the plants now that the turbine buildings, condensers, and pipe tunnels or "trenches" are making headlines. Keep this in mind when you look at the pic -- the features don't match Fukushima of course but it's a good general representation

http://k.min.us/im97DI.png

Credit: Will Davis Former US Navy Reactor Operator; qualified RO on S8G and S5W submarine reactor plants.

 

[Astronuc]

Reports of a "blue flashing light." Not sure where they got this news or if there's any proof.

That video is not really helpful. The reporter talks mostly about dosimeters.

With just decay heat, the blue light or Cerenkov radiation should be continuous, i.e., it should not flash. It would only be bright in the vicinity of the fuel.

If one was getting a blue flash emanating from the upper containment area, unless it's due to an electrical arc or shorted electrical system, it would have to be coming from the SFP, which is not good news.

I would like to have a 'realiable' source to confirm the 'blue flash'.

 

[shogun338]

Damaged Reactor #4 video taken from pump truck . http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=30c_1301689134

 

[shogun338]

Damaged Reactor #4 video taken from pump truck . http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=30c_1301689134

What is the grey looking mass that looks like it has flowed from where the steam is coming from ? Looks almost like molten lead .

 

[MJRacer]

Re: http://atomicinsights.com/2011/04/fukushima-nuclear-accident-exceptional-summary-by-murray-e-miles.html about the SFP at Unit 4:

You need to hear one more complication in the design. The fuel pool is really two pools separated by a gate. Fuel removed from the reactor goes first into the small, upper pool which is only 20 or 25 feet deep. Later they move the fuel to the big, deep pool. There was apparently only a little fuel in this upper pool at the time of the quake.

This UPPER pool broke. The three-eighths inch steel liner is cracked and will not hold water. The concrete wall in front of this upper pool fell off. Fuel was severely damaged probably by explosion. Temperature profiles measured by helicopters show clumps of hot stuff that must be fuel scattered around the floor area. This scenario is consistent with the numerous reports of fire in unit 4.

 

[83729780]

re: blue light:

A criticality accident occurs when the minimum amount of fissile material required to sustain a chain reaction is accidentally brought together. For example, when the nucleus of Uranium-235 disintegrates, two or three neutrons are released, and each is capable of causing another nucleus to disintegrate. However, if the total mass of the U-235 is insufficient to sustain a chain reaction, the neutrons simply escape. In most criticality accidents this chain reaction is very short lived, causing a neutron population spike and resultant radiation, heat and, in many cases, an ethereal "blue flash," a phenomenon of the air surrounding a neutron burst becoming ionized and giving off a flash of blue light.

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/1054"

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident#observed_effects

Blue glow
Main article: Ionized air glow

Many criticality accidents have been observed to emit a blue flash of light and to heat the material substantially. This blue flash or "blue glow" is often incorrectly attributed to Cherenkov radiation, most likely due to the very similar color of the light emitted by both of these phenomena. This is merely a coincidence.

Cherenkov radiation is produced by charged particles which are traveling through a dielectric substance at a speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. The only types of charged particle radiation produced in the process of a criticality accident (fission reactions) are alpha particles, beta particles, positrons (which all come from the radioactive decay of unstable daughter products of the fission reaction) and energetic ions which are the daughter products themselves. Of these, only beta particles have sufficient penetrating power to travel more than a few centimeters in air. Since air is a very low density material, its index of refraction (around n=1.0002926) differs very little from that of a vacuum (n=1) and consequently the speed of light in air is only about 0.03% slower than its speed in a vacuum. Therefore, a beta particle emitted from decaying fission products would need to have a velocity greater than 99.97% c in order to produce Cherenkov radiation. Because the energy of beta particles produced during nuclear decay do not exceed energies of about 20 MeV (20.6 MeV for 14B is likely the most energetic[24]) and the energy needed for a beta particle to attain 99.97% c is 20.3 MeV, the possibility of Cherenkov radiation produced in air via a fission criticality is virtually eliminated.

Instead, the blue glow of a criticality accident results from the spectral emission of the excited ionized atoms (or excited molecules) of air (mostly oxygen and nitrogen) falling back to unexcited states, which happens to produce an abundance of blue light. This is also the reason electrical sparks in air, including lightning, appear electric blue. It is a coincidence that the color of Cherenkov light and light emitted by ionized air are a very similar blue despite their very different methods of production. It would be also interesting to remark that the ozone smell was said to be a sign of high radioactivity field through Chernobyl liquidators.

The only situation where Cherenkov light may contribute a significant amount of light to the blue flash is where the criticality occurs underwater or fully in solution (such as uranyl nitrate in a reprocessing plant) and this would be visible only if the container were open or transparent.[citation needed]

 

[javadave]

re: blue light:



http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/1054"

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident#observed_effects

Cherenkov radiation can be generated in the eye by charged particles hitting the vitreous humour, giving the impression of flashes, as in cosmic ray visual phenomena.

 

[Astronuc]

re: blue light:

In the context of Los Alamos and their experiments in criticality with highly enriched metal sphere of U or Pu, then yes, the 'blue flash' would occur in air. However, that is more likely to be ionization of air, not Cerenkov radiation.

In the case of BWR fuel, the enrichments are about 4%, and less when spent. There is also fission products. LWR fuel requires water moderation for criticality, so if there is no water, there is no criticality of spent fuel. The blue light would pretty much require water to be present.

Out of the pool, I wouldn't expect to see much in the way of blue light, and certainly not a blue flash.


As for atomicinsights, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the article. The Fukushima units are not the same as Oyster Creek, even though they may have Mk I in common. I'm not aware of upper and lower SFP pools.

 

[shogun338]

Neutron beams have also been observed this week .http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110324a6.html

 

[Astronuc]

Neutron beams have also been observed this week .http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110324a6.html

I'm skeptical of such reports. I believe part of the problem is translation.

One so-called beam was reported at 1.5 km from the plant. I can't see a colimated beam at the that distance. The source would have to be pretty intense, and I'd imagine that folks at the plant would receive a fatal dose.

I would like folks to use reliable sources, and treat media reports with a healthy amount of skepticism. I have read a lot of nonsense claims, some published by self-proclaimed or purported experts.

 

[shogun338]

International nuclear experts believe that melted fuel in reactor No. 1 has caused a "localized criticality," which is a small, uncontrolled chain reaction that occasionally emits a burst of heat, radiation and a blue flash of light.http://abcnews.go.com/International...er-speaks-radiation-dangers/story?id=13271759

 

[james14]

International nuclear experts believe that melted fuel in reactor No. 1 has caused a "localized criticality," which is a small, uncontrolled chain reaction that occasionally emits a burst of heat, radiation and a blue flash of light.http://abcnews.go.com/International...er-speaks-radiation-dangers/story?id=13271759

I do wonder if this is actually true, of it's more a case of one news provider copying another

 

[rhody]

http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1106_scr.pdf"

55 Pages... a fascinating and terrifying read.

On 17 June 1997 a criticality accident occurred at the Russian Federal Nuclear Centre (formerly known as Arzamas 16) in the town of Sarov, near Nizhnij Novgorod, about 400 km east of Moscow. The accident happened in a routine manipulation of the components of a critical assembly. The overexposed man, a skilled technician, died 66 h later from the effects of his exposure, despite prompt and intensive medical management. This was thus a very rare type of fatality.
with an experienced technician.

Rhody...

 

[shogun338]

I'm skeptical of such reports. I believe part of the problem is translation.

One so-called beam was reported at 1.5 km from the plant. I can't see a colimated beam at the that distance. The source would have to be pretty intense, and I'd imagine that folks at the plant would receive a fatal dose.

I would like folks to use reliable sources, and treat media reports with a healthy amount of skepticism. I have read a lot of nonsense claims, some published by self-proclaimed or purported experts.

Here is a link about the Tokaimura Accident that happened in Japan. It was neutrons that killed the workers I believe . http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4241_Tokaimura_Accident.html

 

[geb.es]

I can suggest one: superheated steam & gas blow out the fuel transfer chute into the upper SFP (water already hot, or boiling, rapidly vaporizing the water, and resulting in an upward focused blast out of the SFP, launching the FHM skyward, yanking a fuel rod assembly out of the pool as it shoots upward, then crashing on the north end of bldg 3.

I had thought that the original blast at Bldg 3 is on the SOUTH end of the building. The damage on the north end sends stuff crashing downward. If the blast photo is taken from inland, looking eastward, then the blast is to the right, southward. Two towers bracket Bldg 4, on the blast (south) side of Bldg 3. A large hunk of debris comes down on the north side of Bldg 3. But the more I look, I can't make that orientation fit with the towers. Someone help me here.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture28.png

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Top.png

Doesn't this view have to be from the west?
http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture28.png

@TCups: look at 1:51 in this video. Something heavy is falling down and is deviated, or turned around, by the big antenna, so we can presume it landed very close to the antenna:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN8tzmtQv8g

Might that be part of the FHM?

EDIT: I corrected the youtube tags. Also, I am not completely sure whether the object I mentioned is turned around or it simply partly disappears behind the antenna. What seems clear is that at least three objects fall. Two simultaneously (or they might be parts of the same, big, object) one to the right and one slightly to the left of the antenna. Then a third one, about a second later, and to the right of the antenna...

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a link about the Tokaimura Accident that happened in Japan. It was neutrons that killed the workers I believe . http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4241_Tokaimura_Accident.html

They were mixing an aqueous solution of highly enriched (~18.8% U-235). The BWR fuel at Fukushima is ~4%.

In the case of Tokaimura, it would be a combination of neutrons and gamma radiation, and those exposed were inches from the vessel. One guy apparently collapsed onto the vessel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident

 

[Bob S]

Reports of a "blue flashing light." Not sure where they got this news or if there's any proof.

Here is an article about Ed McMillan (Nobel Laureate) putting his head in a charged particle beam and seeing blue flashes in his eye. "Hey, there's one!" he shouted.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903128,00.html

Bob S

 

[razzz]

Even though I know nothing about nuke plants, I know you have the chance to see every combination of every possible scenario here. Doubt operators readings are wrong, probably under-reported as time will tell. The world doesn't get polluted because of a lack of real time reliable readings. And what is the time frame of events being without some type of coolant to the reactors and pools? If when venting pressure, was anything going into replace the pressure or was it just automated by relief valves trying to save the core? Pool(s) status just a bit easier to monitor but without re-watering...

Unit 3 explosion needs input from someone that can calculate the amount of force it takes to create such a blast. The sound track is just as scary as the visual. Doesn't unit 3 report containment shell pressure as matching ambient? Probably because it doesn't exist any longer as resembling a shell. The reactor vessel shell might still exist but has a hole the bottom of it. You have a couple (or more) of ground zero(s) in progress.

Workers refusing to enter the field even before any re-water operations were contemplated speaks volumes.

Basically a nuke complex ran out of water, what did you expect would happen? I didn't know there was a dam in the area, they could have gravity fed the whole place.

Pollute the Pacific to keep the hot spots cool, that is all you can do in this instance. Background noise of moving concrete boom trucks into position is a telltale sign.

Chernobyl is still trying to locate the remaining core parts, hoping to find them before groundwater does as they only capped ground zero as a stopgap measure. BTW, their first capping didn't go well. Further plans for a more permanent cap planned as the nightmare never ends there.

How would you like to place a mass of concrete then have Earth tremors fracture it like a windshield? It won't be easy to cap here. Better to find the pieces and put them somewhere so you know where everything is before throwing a blanket over it.

 

[Bez999]

@Tcups: Regarding your latest scenario (the flying fuelmachine). I can't find fault with it thus far, particularly because it ties together bits of information that didn't make sense before, especially how these rods could have ended up on that side of the building. While it seems a wild theory to have them attached to the entire FHM, which does a backflip through the air, it all fits with what we can see. Note that most damage to the buildings where the FHM now sits was caused by the explosion and debris of the wall BEFORE the machine landed on top of the rubble. Also for the FHM to be able to drag a fuel bundle along without it shearing off, it must have been propelled upward almost vertically, which corresponds with it landing close to its departure point.

 

[TCups]

FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT OF REACTOR BUILDINGS 3 AND 4, TO SCALE, HIGH RESOLUTION

As for atomicinsights, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the article.

The Fukushima units are not the same as Oyster Creek, even though they may have Mk I in common. I'm not aware of upper and lower SFP pools.

Astronuc:
'tis true Oyster Creek is probably a bit different layout. My Illustrator skills are not as good as Photoshop, but I took this diagram

http://www.flickr.com/photos/60551543@N04/5531996321/sizes/z/in/photostream/

Did a scaled overlay sketch of the floor plan layout of the reactor access floor . . .

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture63.png

Copied it to Photoshop and touched it up . . .

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/TopFloor-Floorplan.jpg

Scaled the measurements and structures relative to the high resolution top down views from the fly-over provided by Fred's post (there is some distortion due to differences in perspective between the two buildings), and come up with something like this.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/aerial-floorplan.gif

It may not be exact, but I expect it's pretty darned close -- as close as I can come without the actual floor plans.

I believe there are upper and lower pools on the south side, but one of the pools, at least on the only diagram I seem to have that shows this region of a Mark I, is narrow and deep. It seems to have a transfer gate. Is it for temporary cask storage? One important feature, if the layout is correct -- the fuel handling machine would not straddle the additional small pool on the south side. It can be accessed with the large overhead crane. I the diagram, it would seem to be a place where the yellow cask being lifted up the chute would be placed, and in that location, the spent fuel rod assemblies could be placed "wet" in the fuel cask.

 

[TCups]

REGARDING A BALLISTIC FUEL HANDLING MACHINE

@Tcups: Regarding your latest scenario (the flying fuelmachine). I can't find fault with it thus far, particularly because it ties together bits of information that didn't make sense before, especially how these rods could have ended up on that side of the building. While it seems a wild theory to have them attached to the entire FHM, which does a backflip through the air, it all fits with what we can see. Note that most damage to the buildings where the FHM now sits was caused by the explosion and debris of the wall BEFORE the machine landed on top of the rubble. Also for the FHM to be able to drag a fuel bundle along without it shearing off, it must have been propelled upward almost vertically, which corresponds with it landing close to its departure point.

If there were fuel handling operations in progress and the quake hit, then power failed and the reactor scrammed. It seems plausible that the operators would put the fuel assembly they were handling back in a safe position (if the fuel handling machine could draw power from the backup diesel generators, otherwise not), then get the heck out of there to see what was going on. Think about it -- working up there above the SPF and a big quake hits.

Also, I have absolutely no first hand experience, but from the pictures, the part of the fuel handling machine that handles the fuel assemblies is not a cable or anything like it. It looks like a rigid vertical arm, probably hydraulic, and I would be willing to bet it was built to be very precise, hold the fuel rod assemblies very securely, and put them in exactly the right spot.

If the blast resulted in the same initial trajectory and velocity of the FHM and attached fuel rod assembly, then, the point of impact would be about the same, I should think.

How about it Astronuc? What are the actual mechanics of a FHM and how does it attach to and secure a fuel rod assembly for movement?

 

[Astronuc]

Also, I have absolutely no first hand experience, but from the pictures, the part of the fuel handling machine that handles the fuel assemblies is not a cable or anything like it. It looks like a rigid vertical arm, probably hydraulic, and I would be willing to bet it was built to be very precise, hold the fuel rod assemblies very securely, and put them in exactly the right spot.

If the blast resulted in the same initial trajectory and velocity of the FHM and attached fuel rod assembly, then, the point of impact would be about the same, I should think.

How about it Astronuc? What are the actual mechanics of a FHM and how does it attach to and secure a fuel rod assembly for movement?

The fuel handling machine has a telescoping fuel mast. On the lower end is a grapple with interlocking fingers. The fingers close on the handle, or bail, which is an integral part of the upper tieplate of a BWR fuel assembly.

For fuel handling equipment, see - http://www.parnuclear.com/ParNuclear/docs/PaRNuclearBrochure.pdf

See the diagram for a BWR fuel assembly. Notice the handles on top of the fuel assemblies and control blades.

 

[TCups]

The fuel handling machine has a telescoping fuel mast. On the lower end is a grapple with interlocking fingers. The fingers close on the handle, or bail, which is an integral part of the upper tieplate of a BWR fuel assembly.

For fuel handling equipment, see - http://www.parnuclear.com/ParNuclear/docs/PaRNuclearBrochure.pdf

See the diagram for a BWR fuel assembly. Notice the handles on top of the fuel assemblies and control blades.

So, in the last diagram, 4 fuel assemblies surround a cruciform control blade. The fuel handling machine's "mast" handles each of the 4 assemblies, individually, correct? How many individual rods are in each of the 4 assemblies?

Would the emergency diesel back up generators power the fuel handling machinery if the plant lost power?

 

[Astronuc]

So, in the last diagram, 4 fuel assemblies surround a cruciform control blade. The fuel handling machine's "mast" handles each of the 4 assemblies, individually, correct? How many individual rods are in each of the 4 assemblies?

Would the emergency diesel back up generators power the fuel handling machinery if the plant lost power?

Each fuel assembly is grappled individually.

In the fuel used at Fukushima, the fuel array is an 8x8 lattice. A large central water rod occupies the area that would otherwise be occupied by 4 fuel rods. So there are 60 fuel rods in the FK fuel. Four assemblies have represent 240 fuel rods.

It's possible the EDGs would power the refueling machine. However, if the EDGs are running in an emergency, I seriously doubt that anyone would be moving fuel!

At the moment, we don't know the condition of the SFPs in Units 1-4. I doubt that anyone will be able to get near them, given the level of contamination.

TEPCO personnel will have to remove the debris from the upper containment areas before the SFPs can be addressed. Unit 2 may be the least problematic, whereas the upper structures of Units 1, 3, and 4 are obviously destroyed.

More importantly, the overhead crane is necessary to move heavy equipment, including the containment plug, cover, RPV head, steam dryers, . . . , as well as the spent fuel casks and spent fuel racks. SFP racks can be moved, but they must be empty.

Any equipment from the core must be clean. Any equipment must be stored and handled under water. If equipment is contaminated with radioactive deposits, the deposits must be removed (the equipment must be decontaminated).

 

[Bez999]

@Tcups: It looks like the telescopic arm has an attachment that grasps one fuel assembly at a time. There is an attached camera to assist in locating the thing precisely, i.e. making sure the machine is placed exactly plumb with the assemblies in the storage rack or rector, so when it extracts vertically (because it is a boom, not a cable, there is little leeway), everything lines up.

 

[TCups]

@TCups: It looks like the telescopic arm has an attachment that grasps one fuel assembly at a time. There is an attached camera to assist in locating the thing precisely, i.e. making sure the machine is placed exactly plumb with the assemblies in the storage rack or rector, so when it extracts vertically (because it is a boom, not a cable, there is little leeway), everything lines up.

Pure speculation, perhaps, but I think reasoned speculation on my part is that 60 is a number that might make sense for the number of individual alleged "fuel rods" seen at the alleged "crash site"

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

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/FHMCrater.png