Japanese Reactor Melt Down

In a previous post on the Japanese reactor problems I noted.

Hydrogen explosions indicate a very serious problem. There should be no hydrogen generated under normal conditions. Or abnormal conditions. The situation must be very abnormal.

And the serious problem I feared appears to have happened. A breech of the fuel rods, the reactor vessel, and the containment building.
There appears to be signs of a core “meltdown”.

SOMA, Japan – Japan’s nuclear crisis deepened dramatically Tuesday. As safety officials sought desperately to avert catastrophe, the government said radioactive material leaking from reactors was enough to “impact human health” and the risk of more leaks was “very high.”
In a nationally televised statement, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said that radiation has spread from four reactors of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Fukushima province that was one of the hardest-hit in Friday’s 9.0-magnitude earthquake and the ensuing tsunami.
He urged anyone within 19 miles (30 kilometers) of the plant to stay indoors or risk getting radiation sickness.

This is not good at all. If the shutdown and post shutdown cooling had gone well the reactors should have been past the peak of the danger zone by now.
Sky News has more details.

A third explosion has been heard at a quake-stricken Japanese nuclear power plant, raising fears of a nuclear meltdown.
The blast tore through the unit 2 structure at the Fukushima Daiichi complex and a hole has been found in the container.
Japanese cabinet secretary Yukio Edano has told a press conference there is also currently a fire in unit 4 reactor.
Prime minister Naoto Kan said radiation has spread from the reactors and that anyone living less than 20km away from the facility should leave the area.
He said that those within the 20 to 30km radius should stay inside as the risk of a nuclear leak is rising.
Mr Edano said efforts are being made to cool down all of the reactors using water injection but that radiation levels could affect people’s health.
Two previous explosions occurred in buildings housing unit 1 and 3 reactors following last Friday’s massive earthquake and tsunami.

It has been a long time since I studied this but as I recall the only time you would see a large release of hydrogen gas from a shut down reactor is if the fuel rods were at a very high temperature thus making it possible to use the water available as an oxidizer thus releasing hydrogen. This is some very bad news. Very very bad. Thus these accidents will be studied for years to come. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that compared to Three Mile Island these plants are very poorly designed. It may have something to do with the military heritage of the US plants.
Update: 15 March 2011 1331z
It appears there are quite a few of these GE designed reactors in the US.

On Monday, GE Hitachi Nuclear sent the following statement, in full: “The BWR Mark 1 reactor is the industry’s workhorse with a proven track record of safety and reliability for more than 40 years. Today, there are 32 BWR Mark 1 reactors operating as designed worldwide. There has never been a breach of a Mark 1 containment system.”
The six reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant, which had explosions on Saturday and Monday, are all GE-designed boiling-water reactors, known in the industry as BWRs. Five have containment systems of GE’s Mark I design, and the sixth is of the Mark II type. They were placed in operation between 1971 and 1979.
A fact sheet from the anti-nuclear advocacy group Nuclear Information and Resource Service contends that the Mark I design has design problems, and that in 1972 an Atomic Energy Commission member, Dr. Stephen Hanuaer, recommended that this type of system be discontinued.

“Never been a breach”? They may have to revise that statement in the very near future.
I go back and forth on the nuclear power question a lot. In the past few years I have been swinging towards – nuclear power is OK until we get something better. May be not though. Maybe the pressures on civilians (profits) is not commensurate with the requirements of plant safety. One clue is that the US Government insures the nuclear industry in America. It also regulates the industry. So there is some confluence of interest there.
We won’t know anything for sure until the fires die down and the smoke clears.
Update: 15 March 2011 1411z
The weakness of the boiling water plants has been known for some time.

However, as early as 1972, Dr. Stephen Hanuaer, an Atomic Energy Commission safety official, recommended that the pressure suppression system be discontinued and any further designs not be accepted for construction permits. Shortly thereafter, three General Electric nuclear engineers publicly resigned their prestigious positions citing dangerous shortcomings in the GE design.
An NRC analysis of the potential failure of the Mark I under accident conditions concluded in a 1985 report that Mark I failure within the first few hours following core melt would appear rather likely.”
In 1986, Harold Denton, then the NRC’s top safety official, told an industry trade group that the “Mark I containment, especially being smaller with lower design pressure, in spite of the suppression pool, if you look at the WASH 1400 safety study, you’ll find something like a 90% probability of that containment failing.” In order to protect the Mark I containment from a total rupture it was determined necessary to vent any high pressure buildup. As a result, an industry workgroup designed and installed the “direct torus vent system” at all Mark I reactors. Operated from the control room, the vent is a reinforced pipe installed in the torus and designed to release radioactive high pressure steam generated in a severe accident by allowing the unfiltered release directly to the atmosphere through the 300 foot vent stack. Reactor operators now have the option by direct action to expose the public and the environment to unknown amounts of harmful radiation in order to “save containment.”

Wow. But that does explain the tall “towers” near the plants. They are there to “spread the radiation around” in case of an accident. Which is not a bad idea. If there is not too much of it.
But it is bad design IMO to design a containment failure into the system. What if it fails? You have a designed in a breach. Idiots.
Cross Posted at Power and Control


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

8 responses to “Japanese Reactor Melt Down”

  1. CBI Avatar
    CBI

    Two reasonably good sources of information without much of the hype are:
    NuclearEnergy Institute (http://tinyurl.com/48tbceu)
    World Nuclear News (http://tinyurl.com/4orhrho)
    With these two, I can get a better sense of the situation than CNN + FoxNews + AssociatePress + ABCNews + NPR combined.

  2. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    Hmmm… France’s ASN nuclear safety authority said on Tuesday the nuclear accident at Tokyo Electric Power Co’s (9501.T) Fukushima Daiichi plant could now be classed as level six out of an international scale of one to seven.
    But UN’s IAEA isn’t saying much at all that sounds worried (now), though they are doing updates.

  3. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    That top one should have been quoted – sorry from here.

  4. rhhardin Avatar

    Gall’s Law
    1. All systems fail.
    2. Fail-safe systems fail by failing to fail safe.
    systemantics

  5. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    I wouldn’t worry about radiation leaking from the nukes in Japan. Our own government didn’t in years past, and doesn’t, really, today. On December 2, 1949 they purposely released 8,000 curies of radioactive iodine over eastern Washington and Oregon in what is known as The Green Plume. Between 1947 and 1949 this same Hanford Site released 685,000 curies into the air.
    If you don’t want to discount the source, try reading about current conditions at Hanford:
    http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/hanford/hanford-and-environmental.html
    The Hanford Site is a nightmare waiting to happen. They have tanks that have leaked into the sandy soil surrounding them, and the ONLY way to resolve the mess is to make tons of glass out of it before it leaks into the Columbia River a few hundred yards away. Contract engineers from CH2M Hill are at work on that project now.
    Claims have quietly been paid to thyroid cancer survivors downwind from Hanford who were exposed to radioactive iodine in cows milk from dairies contaminated in the 1950’s.
    They have mounds of stored materials that have “got hot” and formed hydrogen gas. One good explosion, and you’re looking at what happened under similar conditions in Siberia.
    And, as our nuke plants are decommissioned, the spent fuel is being taken to Hanford, since Yucca Mountain has been blocked as a disposal site by Harry Reid, the shitty little Jack Mormon, a political whore who funds his campaigns from
    casino owners.
    The story of the 200 area at Hanford is here:
    http://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/index.php/hanford/sitemap
    Read it if you dare.

  6. M. Simon Avatar

    Frank,
    The worst is we have known at least since the early 60s what a disaster Hanford is.
    They were in a hurry. There was a war on (and possibly one coming) and so they cut corners.

  7. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    Simon, yes agreed, the worst is that they’ve had over 40 years to address and clean up the mess at Hanford. But knowing for that long how bad a situation they created – that they did not have a viable plan for disposal of waste – they continued to promote nuclear energy with the spent fuel stored in open pools on site at each facility, just like the ones in Japan that are now starting to burn in the open air.
    Also, the design of these reactors that call for unlimited amounts of water for cooling necessitate their construction either on rivers or at the ocean. So in California they constructed one at Humbolt Bay, near the northern edge of the San Andreas fault and just a few miles south of Crescent City. What were they thinking? It’s been decommissioned, but another one at Diablo Canyon is on the southern part of the San Andreas and is in operation.
    Don’t you think these types of reactors should be replaced with another design, if feasible, like those once proposed at Livermore that would be underground, or with the development of thorium reactors? From the Wiki article on thorium:
    With a thorium nuclear reactor…there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products, and will burn up existing high-level waste as well as nuclear weapon stockpiles.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
    Why aren’t we working on this, instead of subsidizing windmill construction?

  8. LarryD Avatar
    LarryD

    The plan for dealing with “nuclear waste” (i.e. “spent” nuclear fuel) was to reprocess it to remove the decay and transformation products that make it no longer usable as is and recycle it into new fuel. We actually had the reprocessing plant built and ready to go when Pres. Carter killed it.
    Several of the 4th generation reactor designs will be able to use SNL fairly easily. The enviros harp on it because they want to kill nuclear power, just as they want to kill coal, oil, etc.
    I favor the Molten Salt Reactor, myself, whither it uses thorium or uranium. In fact we could start with using uranium to use up the SNL and the depleted uranium we have, and switch over to thorium as the thorium industry comes on-line.