Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants - Daini (Plant 2)

  1. Feb 18, 2012 #1
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 18, 2012 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants

    There is a PCV inside / equipment inside PCV visual inspection schedule for Fukushima Daini on http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_120208_06-j.pdf page 27 (28/35). The visual inspection of unit 4 was performed from August to December, that of unit 1 is scheduled from December to March, and those of units 2 and 3 are not yet scheduled.

    On page 15 (16/35) they say that they found nothing abnormal in units 1 and 4 during the visual inspections inside PCVs. On the same page, they say that as the temperature design value was exceeded in the suppression chambers, they need to assess the consequences (the nuclear safety commission of Japan requested it). Generally speaking, they have to check each design condition for each equipment, check if they were respected, and, if needed, assess the consequences.

    On page 16 (17/35) they say they made an earthquake analysis finding that the largest strain for a reactor building was 0.11 E-3 at unit 3's 4th floor, in the south-east direction, which is smaller than the 2.0 E-3 assessment standard.
  4. Feb 21, 2012 #3
    "we" already knew this; cold shutdown was reached something like a week in, iirc.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  5. Feb 21, 2012 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The point is that Fukushima Daini (Plant 2) was nearly in the same situation as Fukushima Daiichi (Plant 1). Had they lost power, then six units (three at FK2 and three at FK1) might have suffered catastrophic core damage rather than the three (Units 1, 2 and 3) at Fukushima Daiichi.
  6. Feb 21, 2012 #5
    I think they lost off-site power too, but had working generators. Right?
  7. Feb 21, 2012 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    From the OP - Yomiuri citation:
    No nuclear plant should be so vulnerable! Had the earthquake/tsunami been 12 or 24 hrs later . . . .
  8. Feb 21, 2012 #7
    The other way around. They lost 9 out of 12 generators (all at units 1 and 2), but survived due to one remaining off-site connection. The status of the EDG:s was revealed in a mid-May press conference, two months after the first inquiries were sent to NISA from foreign safety authorities. (Until May, they kept "confirming" the status of the EDGs.)
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook